CASE ANALYSIS heart of atlanta motel v. united states Study

ANALYSIS heart of atlanta motel v. united states - Case Study Example In the case under consideration, Heart of Atlanta Motel questioned and challenged the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and attempted to justify and assert its policy of discrimination against African Americans. The Heart of Atlanta Hotel was located in Atlanta, Georgia. This facility denied the rights of admission to Black Americans, in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit filed by the owner of this motel questioned the powers extended to Congress by the Civil Rights Act in the domain of interstate commerce. In addition, he validated his stance of discrimination against Black Americans on the grounds of the rights extended to him by the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment. The United States justified its authority under the Commerce Clause and denied any violation of the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment Rights of the appellant. On December 14, 1964, a nine-judge bench led by Justice Tom C. Clark unanimously voted in favor of the United States of America. The court validated the authority of Congress in the sphere of Interstate Commerce, as far as the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was concerned. It denied any violation of the Thirteenth Amendment rights of the appellant. The decision accepted the authority of the United States Government in interfering in the acts of discrimination in public accommodation and noted that the jurisdiction of the Title II was, â€Å"carefully limited to the enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and services†¦ (U.S. Supreme Court Media). Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited the practice of racial discrimination in public accommodations whose operations had an impact on the interstate commerce. The Heart of Atlanta motel located in Atlanta, Georgia denied admission to African Americans, in direct contradiction and violation of the Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The owner of this motel stated that the interference of the