Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States

Student’s Name

Supervisor’s Name

Course Name

Due date

Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States

July 22, 1964. Moreton F. Rolleston, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff. Charles L.

United States vs. Heart of Atlanta Motel Heart of Atlanta filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. The US government claimed that African Americans’ ability to move between states was hampered by their inability to stay in public places. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Congress. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II, prohibits racial discrimination in public accommodations such as restaurants and hotels.

With the statute established, a very powerful legal instrument for enforcing equal treatment became accessible. There have been fewer and fewer cases of direct racial discrimination in public accommodations throughout the years. Despite US Supreme Court rulings declaring these practices unconstitutional, Congress established the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in reaction to persistent discrimination against African-Americans. Because the Eisenhower administration was unconcerned about African-American civil rights, many sections of the country (particularly the South) defied the Supreme Court and continued to operate under Jim Crow laws. Civil rights and constitutional protection became a higher priority for both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, resulting in enforceable legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Moreton Rolleston, the owner, sued in federal court, claiming that the Act’s restrictions exceeded Congress’s authority over interstate trade under the Commerce Clause. Rolleston argued against Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on race, religion, or national origin. He went on to say that humans are not commerce; rather, people engage in commerce to justify the Act’s foundation in the Commerce Clause. As a result, because the profit derives from people rather than things, a hotel or motel does not have to engage in interstate commerce. Individual racial discrimination is not outlawed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, according to Rolleston, who claims that discrimination is a private evil that individuals are free to commit. In response, the United States’ Solicitor General, Archibald Cox, argued that the restrictions requiring adequate accommodations for African Americans were inextricably linked to interstate travel and that Congress, under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, had the authority to address the issue in law. Racial discrimination at hotels and restaurants, according to Cox, “constitute[s] a source of hardship or hindrance to interstate trade.”

It is because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids public accommodations such as motels and hotels from discriminating against patrons based on race, sex, color, religion, or national origin, I agree with the Supreme Court. This resulted in inequality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorized Congress to regulate private enterprises if it harmed commerce, was affirmed in this case, and the result was the demolition of the Jim Crow system.


Janus capital group filed the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b–5 prohibits “any person from making any misleading statement of a material fact” in connection with the acquisition or sale of securities. JCG and its wholly-owned subsidiary, petitioner Janus Capital Management LLC (JCM), allegedly made misleading representations in mutual fund prospectuses filed by Janus Investment Fund, according to the complaint (511 U. S. 164).

I agree with the finding, particularly the government’s argument that “made” which should be defined as “create,” allowing private litigants to sue a person who gives inaccurate or misleading information that another person incorporates into a statement.


C. Richard, J. Fliter, (2020). Civil Rights and Public Accommodations: The Heart of Atlanta Motel and McClung Cases Perspectives on Political Science – search.proquest.com

L. McClain – Md. L. Rev. (2020), Involuntary Servitude, Public Accommodations Laws, and the Legacy of Heart of Atlanta Motel. v. the United States. Hein Online.