Today in Supreme Court History: December 14, 1964

12/14/1964: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung are decided.

 

Comments

[not guilty]

An example of judicial supremacy that those who vehemently disagree with government mandated desegregation -- and there were many in 1964 -- should be free to disregard?

[Queen Amalthea]

"The fundamental question I submit is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his Business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers. This is the real important issue. And the fact of alleged civil rights of the Negroes involved is purely incidental, because if Congress can exercise these controls over the rights of individuals it is plausible that there is no limit to Congressional power to appropriate private property and liberty."

The more things change...

[Cal Cetín]

That's a quote from Moreton Rolleston Jr., lawyer for the Heart of Atlanta Motel.

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/10/06/archives/excerpts-from-rights-cases-argument.html

But it seems Justice Black, in his concurrence, has an adequate answer:

"...since the Shreveport Case, this Court has steadfastly followed, and indeed has emphasized time and time again, that Congress has ample power to protect interstate commerce from activities adversely and injuriously affecting it, which, *but for this adverse effect on interstate commerce, would be beyond the power of Congress to regulate.* [emphasis added]

"...whether particular operations affect interstate commerce sufficiently to come under the constitutional power of Congress to regulate them is *ultimately a judicial, rather than a legislative, question,* [emphasis added] and can be settled finally only by this Court. I agree that, *as applied to this motel and this restaurant,* [emphasis added] the Act is a valid exercise of congressional power, in the case of the motel because the record amply demonstrates that its practice of discrimination tended directly to interfere with interstate travel, and, in the case of the restaurant, because Congress had ample basis for concluding that a widespread practice of racial discrimination by restaurants buying as substantial a quantity of goods shipped from other States as this restaurant buys could distort or impede interstate trade."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/241%26amp%3Bhl%3D#writing-USSC_CR_0379_0241_ZC

So this provides an adequate answer to Mr. Rolleston's concerns: It is not merely "incidental" that the law related to discrimination against black people; it's central to Justice Black's analysis.

Discrimination against blacks by hotels, motels and restaurants was so bad that it interfered with interstate commerce, thus providing a basis for Congress to act.

As far as Justice Black is concerned, this indicates that if (hypothetically, of course) a handful of flower shops and bakers refuse service same-sex weddings, then Congress could only get involved if such discrimination had the kind of serious effect as the Jim Crow discrimination Black was discussing.

Do gay couples have to curtail their travel because they're being denied lodging? Is there such a widespread practice of "homophobic" discrimination as to actually distort interstate commerce in cakes and flowers?

If Justice Black was wrong, and if Rolleston was right, then that would suggest the result in this case was wrong, because Congress does *not* have an unlimited power over private property and liberty, and any decision having that result would be unconstitutional.

Only with a limited ruling, such as Justice Black's concurrence, would tackle *serious* forms of commerce-distorting discrimination without giving Congress unlimited power over local florists, etc.

[Frank Drackman]

Next they'll make florists cater Homosexual weddings!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Both cases would be decided differently by today’s Court. As if this needed saying.

[Dilan Esper]

I suspect Heart of Atlanta Motel comes out the same but McClung is closer.

But bear in mind, there isn't a 5 justice majority for Justice Thomas' view of the Commerce Clause. There may not even be a 5 justice majority for any sort of significant limit in the realm of economic activity- a lot of people thought there was in Raich, but there wasn't.