379 U.S. 294 (1964)
Ollie's Barbecue is a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, specializing in barbecued meats and homemade pies, with a seating capacity of 220 customers.1 It is located on a state highway 11 blocks from an interstate highway and a somewhat greater distance from railroad and bus stations.2 The restaurant caters to a family and white-collar trade with a take-out service for Negroes.3 It employs 36 persons, two-thirds of whom are Negroes.4
In the 12 months preceding the passage of the Act, the restaurant purchased locally approximately $150,000 worth of food, $69,683 or 46% of which was meat that it bought from a local supplier who had procured it from outside the State.5 The District Court expressly found that a substantial portion of the food served in the restaurant had moved in interstate commerce.6 The restaurant has refused to serve Negroes in its dining accommodations since its original opening in 1927, and since July 2, 1964, it has been operating in violation of the Act.7 The court below concluded that if it were required to serve Negroes it would lose a substantial amount of business.8
The owners filed a complaint for injunctive relief against Attorney General Katzenbach and other federal officials attacking the constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as applied to their restaurant.9 A three-judge United States District Court heard the case and issued an injunction restraining enforcement of the Act against the restaurant.10 On direct appeal, the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.11 This case was argued together with Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.12
The District Court held that the Act could not be applied under the Fourteenth Amendment because Alabama was not involved in the refusal to serve Negroes.13 The court also found no demonstrable connection between food purchased in interstate commerce and the conclusion that discrimination would affect that commerce.14
Whether Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause as applied to Ollie's Barbecue?15
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 confers upon Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States.16 Clause 18 of the same Article grants it the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.17 This grant extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce.18 Even if an activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.19
Yes. Ollie's Barbecue purchased locally approximately $150,000 worth of food, of which $69,683 or 46 percent was meat procured from outside the State.20 The District Court found that a substantial portion of the food served had moved in interstate commerce.21 Congress had ample basis from prolonged hearings showing that racial discrimination in restaurants reduced spending by Negroes, obstructed interstate travel, and imposed artificial restrictions on the market.22
The volume of food purchased by this single restaurant may appear insignificant in isolation, yet when taken together with that of many others similarly situated the contribution to the demand for interstate goods is far from trivial.23 The District Court erred in requiring a demonstrable connection beyond the rational basis supplied by the legislative record.24 Title II therefore constitutes a valid exercise of the commerce power as applied to this restaurant.25
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause as applied to Ollie's Barbecue.26
Whether Congress may prohibit racial discrimination in restaurants meeting the Act's coverage criteria without providing for a case-by-case judicial or administrative determination that discrimination at a particular restaurant affects interstate commerce?27
Congress may itself determine that a particular activity affects commerce, as it did in the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Railway Labor Act.28 In passing on the validity of such legislation the only function of courts is to determine whether the particular activity regulated or prohibited is within the reach of the federal power.29 Where legislators have a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, the investigation is at an end.30
Yes. Congress determined that refusals of service to Negroes impose burdens on the interstate flow of food and on the movement of products generally.31 The Act limits coverage to restaurants serving food a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce, precisely the situation presented by the $69,683 in out-of-state meat purchased by Ollie's Barbecue.32 Congress may itself determine that a particular activity affects commerce without requiring an independent case-by-case inquiry, just as none was required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The evidence presented at the hearings fully indicated the nature and effect of the burdens on commerce, supplying the rational basis that ends judicial inquiry.33
Congress may prohibit racial discrimination in restaurants meeting the Act's coverage criteria without providing for a case-by-case judicial or administrative determination that discrimination at a particular restaurant affects interstate commerce.34