Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. the United States was a memorable Supreme Court case
considering its impact on the protection of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which tries to provide direct access to public accommodations and public facilities such as hotels and restaurants. The provisions of the law in regards to employment are known as Title VII because of where they are located in the United States Code. It was an act that was passed in 1964. Arguments on the case of Heart of Atlanta in the Supreme Court were made on 5th October 1964. Later the decisions were made on 15th December 1964. The Act was historically relevant because the Civil Rights that were passed previously by Congress were deemed unconstitutional and were not enforced.
Heart of Atlanta was a big hotel in Atlanta with 216 rooms. It refused to rent out rooms to patrons of African-American origin. It was a direct violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which had banned discrimination based on race in public places. It was because Congress controlled interstate commerce. Moreton Rolleston, who was the owner of the hotel, filed suit in a federal court and argued that Act’s requirements exceeded the Commerce Clause authority that was granted to Congress regarding interstate commerce. His argument was specifically against Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibited any discrimination based on national origin, race, or religion in public accommodation places. In the Act, motels and hotels are included as public accommodation types, Moreton further argued that people were not commerce, but they rather engaged in commerce. He said hotels do not participate in interstate commerce since profit is brought by the people rather than the goods. In addition, Rolleston said racial discrimination by a particular person was not prohibited in the constitution’s fourteenth Amendment. He also argued that it was a violation right of the Fifth Amendment to operate his business and chose customers as he wished. Finally, he opposed Congress had left in an involuntary servitude position that forced him to rent to the African Americans and violated his rights of the Thirteenth Amendment.
The United States Solicitor General, Archibald Cox, in response countered that restrictions requiring accommodation for the African Americans were related to the interstate travel. He said Congress had the power to address the mater in law, the country’s Constitution commerce clause. He said that racial discrimination in restaurants was a source of burden to interstate commerce. Cox used different examples where there were protests in regards to racial discrimination greatly affected economies of some places. Cox also said that areas that do not provide equal opportunities are not considered by companies seeking industrial expansion because of fear of demonstrations. He also pointed out that discrimination by motels and hotels interfered with interstate travel because of limiting the available accommodation for travelers. He also stated that the Fifth Amendment did not forbid the reasonable regulation of interstate commerce.
Lastly, he claimed the Thirteenth Amendment applied to slavery and elimination of disabilities associated related to it and would not place racial discrimination issues in the accommodation industry beyond state law’s reach.
The United States was favored in the District Court ruling and issued with a permanent injunction that required Heart of Atlanta hotel to stop racial discrimination in services for the general public. The Supreme Court took the position that Congress acted appropriately within the authority it had within the Commerce clause bypassing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While there were other possible ways that the Congress would have used to abolish racial discrimination, the way it did was also valid. It found there were no merits in the pursuits‘ arguments regarding the Thirteenth Amendment. It found it difficult to believe that the Amendment could be used to restrain civil rights legislation.
In the Lobel V. Woodland case, the plaintiff Robert Lobel was a disabled man who needed a specialized golf cart in order to play golf. He sued Woodland Gold Club in a federal court for not allowing him to use the cat on their golf course. Label was not a club member and was invited to play by one of the members of the club. He had been allowed to play in other clubs using the solo Rider carts but denied at Woodland club.