Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. United States Flashcards
1964 Civil Rights Act
- Forbids discrimination in hiring, firing, and customer service on the basis of race, national origin, ethnicity, and sex
- Law contained no findings (official statement of reasons why Congress passed law)
- Congress did take lots of testimony about discrimination faced nationwide by African Americans
Congress found things were so bad
•“as to require the listing of available lodging for Negroes in a special guidebook” –> Greenbooks
covered places to stay, eat, and fill up car
Facts
Effect of racial discrimination
-“obvious impairment of the Negro traveler’s pleasure and convenience that resulted when he continually was uncertain of finding lodging”
-not gonna go on buinuess travel if you do not know where you are going to stay
- Heart of Atlanta Motel
- 216 rooms in central Atlanta
- Refused to rent to African American patrons
- Owner, Moreton Rolleson, challenges the constitutionality of Civil Rights Act
Options for federal regulation (14th amendment + state action doctrine)
- multiple strategies they could have used to delt with this
- sect 1 = equal protection clause: No stateshall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
- section 5 → congress has the power to make sure that the kinds of things talked about in 14th amendment become a reality: Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
- state → underlined → who is doing the discriminating → the racist owner of business
- problem of state action docrine:
- 14th amendment = only designed to ensure that state + local govs do the right thing but still allow ordinary people to do the wrong thing
- there is no state law in Georgia saying motel owners cannot operate a racially integrated hotel
- left open to each business owners choice
State action doctrine -who is doing the rights violating?
•State laws do not requireprivate businesses to discriminate
•State laws do not forbid this discrimination
Options for federal regulation (Civil Rights act of 1875)
Civil Rights Act of 1875
•Passed after Civil War, similar to Civil Rights Act of 1964
•Struck down in Civil Rights Cases on state action doctrine grounds
•If states are not doing the violating, Congress cannot step in
Court in Heart of Atlanta could overturn Civil Rights Cases
•Refuse to consider this route (except for Douglas’ concurrence)
•Used Commerce Clause instead
Rolleson’s argument
Hotels do not engage in interstate commerce
•At most they serve customers who may be engaging in interstate commerce (traveling in order to buy or sell)
Congress isn’t regulating commerce
•Regulating actions it considers immoral
State action doctrine
•State governments cannot discriminate but individuals can use their property however they please
Fifth Amendment Due Process violation
•Puts him in a position of either changing the way he does business or selling his business•
Therefore it’s a deprivation of his property
Thirteenth Amendment
•Bans slavery and involuntary servitude
Dropped from our excerpt
Clark’s Majority Opinion (What is commerce)
What is commerce?
•Intercourse (Gibbons v. Ogden), more than just buying and selling
•“Includes the transportation of people and their property” (Hoke v. United States)
Civil Rights Act similar to
•Champion, HippoliteEgg, Hoke,Darby, Wickard
•All involve buying and selling across state lines
•Congress being motivated by moral concerns is irrelevant
what do these cases have in common —> all involve buying and selling things across state lines → in every one → congress’s morality based motivation = deemed irrelevant
Application precedents to Civil Rights Act (Do motels “engage” in interstate commerce?)
Do motels “engage” in interstate commerce?
•They do if they serve food purchased from out of state vendors or use furniture bought out of state
•Even if they don’t buy these things
- buinuess model → room → has furinature = bought out of states or has food →bought from out of state farmer → engaged in interstate commerce → bought and sold something though state lines
- even if you make everything yourself → substian effects test seen in darby and wicker = present here
- even if the hotel never buys anything from business across state lines
- if some of their customers = enagegd in interstate business travel congress can make sure the trips are successful
- green book → shows us black businesses = suffering → few options to find place to stay, fill up their cars
The power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities in both the States of origin and destination, which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce.”
Application precedents to Civil Rights Act (Why congress has the power to act)
Does Heart of Atlanta Motel serve customers engaged in interstate commerce?
-Yes, but not all their customers are on interstate business trips
Why can Congress ban all discrimination as opposed to discrimination against people on interstate business trips?
- congres can ban all forms of discrimination → not just that of those going on buinuess trips
- obstructions being removed → at discretion of congres
- means chosen must meet the end goals
- regardless of what % of business is in interstate commerce → can be regulated to same extent to those with businesses are only about interstate stuff
Rule: “this is a matter of policy that rests entirely with the Congress not with the courts. How obstructions in commerce may be removed—what means are to be employed—is within the sound and exclusive discretion of the Congress. It is subject only to one caveat—that the means chosen by it must be reasonably adapted to the end permitted by the Constitution.”
Apply rule
- Even if 1% of Heart of Atlanta’s business is serving customers on interstate business trips
- Congress can regulate 100% of behavior
•Don’t like it? Win an election
- Where have we seen this before?
- Even if 1% of Darby Lumber’s sales are out of state
- Congress can regulate the wages and hours of all its employees
Douglas Concurring Opinion (Defined)
Concurring opinion agrees with the majority about whoshould win the case
•Some concurring opinions offer different reasonsas to how the case should be decided
•Other concurring opinions agree 100% with the majority but the justice just wanted to pontificate a little
Douglas Concurring Opinion
Doesn’t disagree about the Commerce Clause
•Would prefer to use the occasion to overturn Civil Rights Cases
•To be fair: Clark doesn’t say Civil Rights Cases shouldn’tbe overturned, only that the Commerce Clause legitimates the law
- wants to decide case on 14th amendment grounds
- easier to know where law stands
- still have to prove the 1% in order to be regulated under the commerce clause
- douglas says lets not put ourself in position where a smaller hotel or restaurant will try to claim that everything is intra state and congress cannot regulate
- 14th amendment removes state action doctrine → doesn’t matter who discrimination is occurring by → congress can get rid of it
- douglas winning = huge effects
- Georgia tolerated racist bisnuess owners making racist decisions
- have state gov standing on sidelines doing nothing would become as bad as gov actively taking steps to subjugate people → Radical change
- indifference = same thing as enabling → state govs staying on sidelines = just as bad as them stepping in and creating problems → similar argument seen in West Coast Hotel v. parrish
- gov obligation used to be to stay neutral
- realization of this case → staying on the sidelines = creating problems around poverty the gov has to resolve
- don’t have to wai til poverty = problematic →beat it before it occurs by passing minimum wage law
- indifference = same thing as enabling → state govs staying on sidelines = just as bad as them stepping in and creating problems → similar argument seen in West Coast Hotel v. parrish
