Con Law IThe Commerce Power

The Commerce Power and Civil Rights

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung (both 1964) upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on discrimination in public accommodations as regulation of interstate commerce, through interstate travelers and food shipped across state lines.

Not started Jump to practice

Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to end segregation in public life. Title II forbade discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, restaurants, theaters and other "public accommodations" whose operations affect commerce. Which power supported it? Most people would guess the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress relied mainly on the Commerce Clause, and the Court upheld it on that ground.

Why it works

Why the Commerce Clause and not the Fourteenth Amendment? The Fourteenth Amendment says "No State shall…"; it limits governments. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883) the Court had struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which banned discrimination in inns, theaters and transport, holding that Congress's Fourteenth Amendment power did not reach private businesses. Rather than ask the Court to overrule that decision, Congress grounded Title II mainly in the commerce power, which reaches private conduct affecting commerce.

Key idea

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung (both 1964, unanimous) upheld Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a regulation of interstate commerce: through interstate travelers (the motel) and food shipped across state lines (the restaurant).
Eighty-one years from the Civil Rights Cases to the 1964 decisions.

Worked example: Two routes to the same result

Explain the different commerce links in the two 1964 cases.
  1. Heart of Atlanta: the motel served interstate travelers directly; discrimination burdened interstate travel.
  2. McClung: the restaurant served mostly local customers, but bought food that had moved across state lines; discrimination by many such restaurants reduced that flow (aggregation).
  3. Both rested on findings Congress made in hearings.

Answer: Travel for the motel, goods and aggregation for the restaurant.

Worked example: Motive and the commerce power

The motel argued that Congress's real aim was moral, not commercial. What did the Court say?
  1. Under Darby (1941), Congress's motive does not matter if the law regulates commerce.
  2. That Congress also saw discrimination as a moral wrong did not make the law invalid.
  3. The Court also rejected arguments that the law took property without due process or imposed involuntary servitude.

Answer: A valid commerce regulation stands whatever moral purpose it also serves.

Common mistake

Thinking the 1964 Act's public accommodations rules rested on the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court upheld them under the Commerce Clause, partly because the Civil Rights Cases (1883) had limited Congress's Fourteenth Amendment power over private businesses. Check: does the law regulate private businesses? Then ask which power reaches private conduct.

Justices Douglas and Goldberg wrote concurrences saying the Fourteenth Amendment could also support the law. The limits of Congress's Fourteenth Amendment power return in Enforcing the Civil War Amendments and United States v. Morrison.

This is an educational course, not legal advice.

Practice

Pass with 3 right answers, the last 2 in a row. Each right answer earns 3 XP.

Loading practice…

Builds on

Leads to

Sources and further reading

@teddyrookbook GitHub