Atlanta Motel Case

918 Words2 Pages

The Heart of Atlanta Motel's refusal to accept African American guests created a significant moment in American legal history, as it led to the landmark United States v. Heart of Atlanta Motel case. The motel's discriminatory policy was challenged based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act was put to the test. The Supreme Court's decision, which upheld the Act's validity, had far-reaching effects, impacting both our laws and how people treat one another. The case served as a testament to the power and impact of landmark legal decisions …show more content…

The owner of the hotel, Moreton Rolleston, violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to rent rooms to African American guests. According to the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States | Civil Rights Act, 1964, Discrimination | Britannica “the owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel in Georgia, who had previously refused to accept black customers, filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the prohibition of racial discrimination contained in Title II of the Civil Rights Act represented an invalid exercise of Congress’s constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.” Rolleston's refusal to rent rooms to African American customers violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since Rolleston believed that Congress had overreached in regulating Clause, and Title II of the Civil Rights Act, had an invalid reason that prohibits segregation or discrimination in public places in the interstate commerce. Also the Student Project: Civil Rights Under the Commerce Clause: Landmark Case: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States stated, “The owners of the Heart of Atlanta Motel filed suit in federal court, challenging the Civil Rights Act on the basis that Congress had exceeded its Commerce Clause power to regulate interstate commerce. The owners also argued that the Act violated their Fifth Amendment rights by depriving them of the right to run their business as they saw fit, which included choosing their patrons.” Rolleston thought that the title violated the Fifth Amendment because of the due process and just compensation because it was unable to have his right to choose his

Open Document