CASE ANALYSIS heart of atlanta motel v. united states Study

ANALYSIS heart of battle of Atlanta motel v. united states - Case Study ExampleIn the case under consideration, Heart of Atlanta Motel questioned and challenged the constitutionality of the polite Rights Act of 1964 and attempted to justify and assert its policy of discrimination against African Americans.The Heart of Atlanta Hotel was primed(p) in Atlanta, Georgia. This facility denied the rights of admission to Black Americans, in channel infringement of the polite Rights Act of 1964. The cause filed by the owner of this motel questioned the powers extended to Congress by the Civil Rights Act in the domain of interstate highway 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 13th 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-j udge bench led by Justice tomcat C. Clark unanimously voted in favor of the United States of America. The court validated the authority of Congress in the playing area 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, carefully limited to the enterprises having a get hold of 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 th e Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The owner of this motel stated that the interference of the