379 U.S. 241 (1964)
The appellant, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc., owns and operates a 216-room motel located on Courtland Street in Atlanta, Georgia, two blocks from downtown Peachtree Street.1 The motel is readily accessible to interstate highways 75 and 85 and state highways 23 and 41.2 It solicits patronage from outside Georgia through national advertising media, maintains over 50 billboards and highway signs, accepts convention trade from outside the state, and approximately 75 percent of its registered guests are from out of state.3 The motel provides lodging to transient guests along with restaurant facilities and prior to the Act had followed a practice of refusing to rent rooms to Negroes.4
The United States filed suit against the appellant in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Sections 206(a) and 206(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.5 The complaint alleged that the appellant was operating a motel in which it refused to accept Negro guests solely because of their race.6 The appellant offered no evidence at trial, submitting the case on the pleadings, admissions, and stipulation of facts, though the appellees proved the refusal to accept Negro transients after passage of the Act.7 The District Court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from continuing its discriminatory practices, citing 231 F. Supp. 393.8
The case reached the Supreme Court on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1252.9 The motel is located at the intersection of two major interstate highways and advertises in national magazines and on billboards directed at interstate travelers.10 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on July 2, 1964, following extensive hearings before Senate and House committees on bills including S. 1732 and H.R. 7152.11
The Act's Title II, set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq., provides that all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.12 The appellant admitted that 75 percent of its guests come from out of state.13 The motel's policy of refusing to rent rooms to Negroes has the effect of impeding interstate travel by Negro citizens.14
Whether Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exceeds the power of Congress to regulate commerce under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution?15
Congress possesses plenary authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, including local operations whose cumulative impact impedes the free flow of interstate travel and goods, as the Clause extends to intercourse among the states and authorizes regulation of intrastate activities that burden national commerce.16
No. The Heart of Atlanta Motel is located on interstate highways 75 and 85, solicits patronage through national advertising and over fifty billboards, accepts convention trade from outside Georgia, and derives approximately seventy-five percent of its guests from out of state, while its admitted policy of refusing Negro transients directly impedes interstate travel by Negro citizens as established by voluminous congressional hearings and the record evidence of nationwide discriminatory burdens on commerce.17
Title II constitutes a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause as applied to the motel.18
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Black concurred in the Court's opinion and judgment.19 He agreed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause because the evidence demonstrates that racial discrimination in public accommodations has a substantial effect upon interstate commerce.20 Justice Black wrote separately to express his view that the Act is also supported by Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.21
That Amendment grants Congress power to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation.22 The denial of equal access to public accommodations is a form of state action that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits.23 Congress has power under Section 5 to remedy such discrimination.24
Justice Douglas concurred in the opinion and judgment of the Court.25 He agreed that the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause is broad enough to sustain this legislation.26 The record shows that the Heart of Atlanta Motel is an integral part of the interstate system of hotels and motels.27
Its discriminatory practices burden interstate commerce.28 Justice Douglas also believed that the Act is valid under the Fourteenth Amendment.29 The right to travel from state to state is a privilege and immunity of national citizenship protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.30
Racial discrimination in public accommodations burdens that right.31 Congress has power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment by legislation such as this Act.32
Justice Goldberg concurred in the opinion of the Court.33 He agreed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represents a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause.34 The primary purpose of the Act is the vindication of human dignity and not mere economics.35
The Senate Commerce Committee made this quite clear in emphasizing the humiliation and frustration that accompanies denials of equal access.36 Justice Goldberg stressed that Congress may also achieve this purpose through its enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.37
Whether Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violates the Fifth Amendment by depriving the appellant of property without due process of law or just compensation?38
The Fifth Amendment permits reasonable regulation of private property under the commerce power.39 It does not require compensation for every restriction on use that prevents discrimination, provided the regulation bears a rational relation to a legitimate end and does not effect a physical taking.40
No. The Fifth Amendment permits reasonable regulation of private property under the commerce power.41 The Act regulates the motel's use of its property by prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations that serve interstate travelers.42 This measure is rationally related to removing obstructions to commerce.43 The regulation imposes no physical appropriation of the premises or deprivation of all economic value.44 The motel retains the ability to operate its business while complying with the nondiscrimination requirement.45
Title II does not violate the Fifth Amendment.46
Whether Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?47
Congress does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power when it sets clear standards in the statute to guide enforcement by courts and agencies.48
No. Congress does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power when it sets clear standards in the statute to guide enforcement by courts and agencies.49 Title II articulates precise definitions of covered establishments such as inns, hotels, and motels providing lodging to transient guests.50 The Act sets forth clear standards to guide the courts and the agencies charged with its enforcement. It does not confer unlimited discretion upon the Attorney General or the courts.51
These provisions supply intelligible standards that cabin the Attorney General's enforcement authority and judicial application of the law.52
Title II does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.53
Whether Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violates the Thirteenth Amendment?54
The Thirteenth Amendment abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude and does not prohibit federal legislation barring racial discrimination in public accommodations, which imposes no condition akin to bondage.55
No. The Thirteenth Amendment abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude.56 It does not prohibit federal legislation barring racial discrimination in public accommodations.57 The Act merely requires the motel to serve all transient guests without regard to race.58 It does not subject any person to compulsory labor or restore any badge of slavery.59 The legislation imposes no condition akin to bondage on the motel owner.60
Title II does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment.61