Heart of atlanta motel v united states

Heart of atlanta motel v united states

Heart of atlanta motel v united states

While Trump’s presidency marches forward unabated, the U.S. military has finally made a decision about what to do about their horrific running joke of an army base located smack-dab in the heart of the city of Atlanta.


Cornell University Law School - Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 14, 1964, that in passing Title II of the (Source: www.britannica.com www.britannica.com)), final court of appeal and final expositor of the Constitution of the United States. Within the framework of litigation, the Supreme Court marks the boundaries of authority between state and nation, state and state, and government and citizen.… (Source:

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org))Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Commerce Clause gave the U.S. Congress power to force private businesses to abide by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommFind sources: "Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Source:odations. (Source:

en.wikipedia.org)This important case represented an immediate challenge to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark piece of civil rights legislation which represented the first comprehensive act by Congress on civil rights and race relations since the Civil Rights Act of 1875. For much of the 100 years preceding 1964, African Americans in the United States had been dominated by racial segregation, a system of racial separation which, while in name providing for "separate but equal" treatment of both white and African Americans, in deed provided inferior accommodation, services, and treatment for African Americans. (Source:

During the mid-20th century, partly as a result of cases such as Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950); McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958); Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 (1960); and, most notably, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), public opinion began to turn against segregation. Despite the outcomes of these cases, segregation remained in full effect into the 1960s in parts of the southern United States, where the Heart of Atlanta Motel was located. (Source: en.wikipedia.org)

In further arguing against the validity of the Act's basis on the Commerce Clause, he stated that people themselves are not commerce; rather, people engage in commerce. Therefore, a hotel or motel does not necessarily engage in interstate commerce because the profit comes from persons rather than goods. Rolleston also asserted that racial discrimination by an individual is not prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment or the Constitution, claiming that discrimination is a private wrong that individuals are allowed to commit. (Source: en.wikipedia.org)

In addition, Rolleston maintained that it violated his Fifth Amendment rights to choose customers and operate his business as he wished and resulted in unjust deprivation of his property without due process of law and just compensation. Finally, he contended that Congress had placed him in a position of involuntary servitude by forcing him to rent available rooms to African Americans, thereby violating his Thirteenth Amendment rights. Rolleston noted that in 1944 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States held that even if acts committed in involuntary servitude are compensated, it still violates the Thirteenth Amendment. (Source: en.wikipedia.org)

Related Articles