The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: December 14, 1964
12/14/1964: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung are decided.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Katzenback v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (both decided December 14, 1964): Congress had Commerce Clause power to prohibit racial discrimination in restaurants (Katzenbach) and public accommodations (Heart of Atlanta Motel)
Texas v. New Mexico, 592 U.S. --- (decided December 14, 2020): another original jurisdiction case involving water rights Here, the Court gives New Mexico credit for Texas water that evaporated while being stored in New Mexico at Texas's request (mixing it with Tequila would have prevented that)
NYNEX Corp. v. Discon Inc., 525 U.S. 128 (decided December 14, 1998): buyer's economically irrational decision to not buy from a certain seller (of services to remove outdated telephone equipment) is not per se antitrust violation under "group boycott" rule (e.g., refusal of group of buyers not to buy from those who also sell to a certain other buyer)
Heart of Atlanta is one of the worst decisions to ever come out of the SCOTUS
Don't be coy; you know you want to say Brown vs. Board of Education.
he said "Decision(s)" I'm sure he'll get to "Brown" which Senescent Joe also thought was pretty bad, back when he had (his own) hair.
I'm just amazed there weren't any old dead white guys with handlebar moustaches born on this day.
Apparently the difference between government schools and private businesses is lost on you.
That dude is a white supremacist who couldn't stop talking about blacks all being criminal drains on society before I blocked him.
Is that lost on you? Maybe don't white knight that guy.
"That dude is a white supremacist who couldn’t stop talking about blacks all being criminal drains on society before I blocked him."
Strip away the various forms of bigotry (and the misleading, cherry-picked sniping at the heels and ankles of the American mainstream by disaffected culture war casualties) and what is left of the Volokh Conspiracy these days?
I doubt that question has evaded the attention of a few law schools lately.
A typical distracting ad hominem from Sarcastro.
Why not address the substantive point?
Ad hominem; is there anything it can't do?
All criminal drains? No. A very high percentage? Yes.
Brown v. Board of Ed ultimately caused white flight. Schools should be able to exclude low IQ people, as they ultimately detract from the learning of everyone else. If those low IQ people are disproportionately black, so be it.
First, shut down government schools. (Not a proper function of government.)
Then, like you said: schools, just like any other private establishment, should be free to exclude whoever they want.
What will happen when a twenty-first century Ollie McClung challenges public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, claiming that his deity tells him that serving black and white customers together in the dining room of his barbecue joint is an abomination? (Not a novel claim. See, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 377 F.2d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 1967) (Winter, J., concurring), aff'd 390 U.S. 400 (1968). Will the Attorney General bear the burden of showing that the challenged provisions further a compelling governmental interest and that prohibiting racial segregation only at the takeout window is not an acceptable, less restrictive means?
If you were capable of thinking, you'd realize that actually rebutting an argument is more effective than insulting the messenger.