Heart of Atlanta Motel v US1964
This is a mind map that contains information about the heart of Atlanta Motel.
Similar Mind Maps
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Heart of Atlanta Motel
United State of America
Heart of Atlanta Motel is a 216 room motellocated at the intersection of twointerstates in Atlanta, Georgia
Heart of Atlanta Motel hosts mostly out ofstate guests
Heart of Atlanta Motel would like tocontinue to exclude black Americans fromstaying there
Heart of Atlanta has a no blackAmericans policy and would liketo continue this policy
Heart of Atlanta Motel sued the UnitedState of America to find the Civil RightsAct of 1964 unconstitutional asexceeding the Commerce Clause
The case was initially tried in the NorthernDistrict Court of Georgia in 1964 the Courtruled against Heart of Atlanta Motel
The lower court held Title II of the CivilRights Act of 1964 as constitutional
The lower court issued a permanentinjunction requiring the Heart ofAtlanta Motel to refrain from racialdiscrimination
Heart of Atlanta Motel appealed, and the Supreme Court of the United Statesdecided to hear the case without itproceeding through the 11th Circuit.
The US argues that congress did notunconstitutionally exceed its powers underthe Commerce Clause by enacting Title IIof the 1964 Civil Rights Act, whichprohibited racial discrimination in publicaccommodations.
The court observed that 75% of the Heartof Atlanta Motel's clientele came fromoutofstate, and that it was strategicallylocated near Interstates 75 and 85 as wellas two major Georgia highways, the Courtfound that the business clearly affectedinterstate commerce.
The U.S. Supreme Court held thatCongress acted well within its authorityunder the Commerce Clause in passing theCivil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholdingthe act's Title II in question.
Congress was within its authority becauseCourts gave broad deference to congresson commerce clause issues that involvedfree movement of people
The plaintiff has the burden of proving...
The court was not within its authorityunder the Commerce Clause to passthe Civil Rights Act of 1964
In fact, the court exceeded its authority inpassing this law
Its 5th amendment rights were violatedand this impacted the use of property andcompensation
Rule of Law
Congress can regulate local activities thatsubstantially affect interstate commerce
Means of regulation are okay as long asthe end is constitutional
Plaintiff must show that the requirementsof Civil Rights Act of 1964 exceeded theauthority granted to congress overinterstate commerce
Plaintiff must show that the Civil Rights Actof 1964 violated its 5th amendment andresulted in unjust deprivation of its property
Sexual Orientation Discrimination
"Deprivation of personal dignity that surelyaccompanies denials of equal access topublic establishments,” Heart of AtlantaMotel, Inc. v. United States, means that anantidiscrimination law fulfills its purposewhen it reaches all, not simply most, publicaccommodations
Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey (2017)
The Supreme Court upheld theconstitutionality of the publicaccommodations provisions of the CivilRights Act of 1964 in Heart of AtlantaMotel, Inc. v. United States. The SupremeCourt agreed that Congress possessed theauthority to outlaw discrimination in publicaccommodations on the basis of race. Heartof Atlanta Motel, Inc., Congress acted againto outlaw discrimination in publicaccommodation.
Civil Rights Education and EnforcementCenter v Hospitality Properties Trust(2017)
The US Supreme Court upheld thepermanent injunction issued bythe district court
This prevented Heart of Atlanta fromdiscriminating against patrons based onrace
US v Alfonso LOPEZ,Jr (1995)
Alfonso Lopez brought a gun to schooland was convicted of violating the GunFree School Zones Act of 1990
The trial court found the defendantguilty. He appealed and the court ofappeals had to decide whether congressexceeded its Commerce Cause power byextending it to activities that don't havean apparent connection to interstatecommerce
The Supreme Court held the court ofappeals decisions that the possession of ahangun near school is not an activity thathas a substantial effect on interstatecommerce.
This case is important because it limitedThe Congress's power to use theCommerce Clause to regulate issues.
US v Jean MARTIGNON (2004)
Jean Martignon operated MidnightRecords and was indicted by a federalgrand jury for selling unauthorizedrecordings of live performances
Jean Martignon moved to dismiss theIndictment on the basis that theantibootlegging statute is unconstitutionalbecause it was to broad and did not limitthe statutes reach.
The government cited many past casesincluding Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. vUnited States and Congress's ability toenact legislation under its CommerceClause but the court agreed it was toobroad.
This case uses similar reasoningto the Heart of Atlanta case,however it helps illustrate thatcongress's power under theCommerce Clause are notunlimited.
Issue Before the Court
Whether congress exceeded its CommerceClause power by depriving motel the rightto choose its customers