Heart of Atlanta MotelHeart of Atlanta Motelv.v.

US GovernmentUS Government(1964)(1964)

Constitutional IssueConstitutional Issue

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned racial discrimination in public places, racial discrimination in public places, particularly in public accommodations. particularly in public accommodations. Largely based on congress control of Largely based on congress control of interstate commerce.interstate commerce.

Litigant: Heart of Atlanta Litigant: Heart of Atlanta MotelMotel

Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to rent Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to rent out rooms to black patrons, in direct out rooms to black patrons, in direct violation to the terms of the act.violation to the terms of the act.

Litigant 2: US GovernmentLitigant 2: US Government

The US government is defending the Civil The US government is defending the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the motel’s racial Rights Act of 1964, the motel’s racial discrimination is interfering with the discrimination is interfering with the interstate commerce. interstate commerce.

BackgroundBackground

The hotel owner says he has the right to The hotel owner says he has the right to turn away who ever he wants, including turn away who ever he wants, including people of color. The US government want people of color. The US government want to bring out the reason of why the Civil to bring out the reason of why the Civil Rights Act was made and how the motel’s Rights Act was made and how the motel’s racial discrimination is interfering with the racial discrimination is interfering with the interstate commerce.interstate commerce.

Majority OpinionMajority Opinion

The majority agreed with the US The majority agreed with the US government. They see the reasoning government. They see the reasoning behind why the US government is behind why the US government is defending this act.defending this act.

Other’s Point of ViewOther’s Point of View

They didn’t want to agree with the US They didn’t want to agree with the US government, but they understood how it government, but they understood how it was interfering with travelers.was interfering with travelers.

SignificanceSignificance

The importance of this is it brought The importance of this is it brought everyone together to agree on things. It everyone together to agree on things. It also made things less intense at the also made things less intense at the interstate commerce and made traveling interstate commerce and made traveling easier, and people had no problems with easier, and people had no problems with public accomodations.public accomodations.

Personal OpinionPersonal Opinion

I feel that the US government was right I feel that the US government was right on defending the act because, it was on defending the act because, it was interfering with the interstate commerce, interfering with the interstate commerce, but it also brought to the attention on how but it also brought to the attention on how people were still being treated because of people were still being treated because of their race. That’s why the Civil Rights Act their race. That’s why the Civil Rights Act was made to banned racial discrimination was made to banned racial discrimination and this helped stop it.and this helped stop it.

Work CitedWork Cited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_Statesa_Motel_v._United_States

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-cohttp://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar14.htmlurt/cases/ar14.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcahttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=379&invol=241se.pl?court=US&vol=379&invol=241