Judicial branch · Landmark case
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States
379 U.S. 241 (1964) · Opinion of the Court
What you should know
This page explains the Court’s holding in plain language, where the official text lives, and what to check next.
Supreme Court findings are not news summaries. The controlling document is the Court’s opinion, plus any concurrences or dissents. Use this profile to understand the holding, then verify language, syllabus, and docket history on official sources before relying on a secondary account.
The Court held that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans racial discrimination in places of public accommodation, is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power as applied to a motel serving interstate travelers. Because the motel actively solicited and served out-of-state guests, its discrimination against Black travelers had a real, substantial effect on interstate commerce — enough to bring it within Congress’s regulatory reach.
Background
The Heart of Atlanta Motel, a 216-room motel near two interstates, refused to rent rooms to Black customers and advertised nationally for out-of-state guests, roughly 75% of whom came from outside Georgia. Days after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took effect, the motel sued to block enforcement of Title II, arguing Congress had exceeded its Commerce Clause power and that the law violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by forcing the owner into “involuntary servitude” to Black customers.
This was the first major test of the new Civil Rights Act to reach the Supreme Court. The Court moved quickly — argued in early October, decided by mid-December — and rejected every argument the motel raised, unanimously upholding the law.
The Commerce Clause becomes the constitutional foundation for the Civil Rights Act’s public-accommodations protections.
Rather than relying on the Fourteenth Amendment (which only restrains state action, not private businesses), Congress and the Court used the Commerce Clause to reach private discrimination directly — a strategy this unanimous ruling confirmed was constitutionally sound, clearing the path for the Act to be enforced nationwide.
Vote and authorship
| Majority | Clark, J. (opinion of the Court) |
|---|---|
| Join | Warren, C.J., Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Goldberg |
| Concurrence | Black, J.; Douglas, J.; Goldberg, J. (each writing separately on the reasoning, not the outcome) |
| Dissent | None |
The power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof.
Justice Clark · Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States
How it fits in government
Legislative branch
This ruling confirmed Congress had the constitutional power to pass Title II’s public-accommodations protections — without this decision, the Civil Rights Act’s enforcement against private businesses would have remained legally uncertain.
Judicial branch
The Court applied the same “substantial effects” Commerce Clause reasoning from Wickard v. Filburn to a civil-rights context — showing how one constitutional doctrine can serve very different legislative purposes.
Where to verify
Start with the official opinion text, syllabus, and docket materials. Secondary explainers are useful only after the primary record is open.
Official records visitors may need
SupremeCourt.gov
Opinions, docket search, rules, and Court information.
Oyez
Case abstract, oral argument audio, and justice votes.
Opinion text (Justia)
Readable public text of the case.
GovInfo · U.S. Courts
Official publications and related federal court materials.
Related research paths
Wickard v. Filburn
The 1942 case establishing the “substantial effects” test this ruling applies.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The full law, including Title II’s public-accommodations protections.
Landmark cases guide
Other holdings that define federal power and civil rights.