LS500 Legal Method and Process Unit 8 Commerce Clause & Civil Rights Dr. Christie L. Richardson Kaplan University

U.S. Constitution in Brief Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 –“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. 5th Amendment –No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

U.S. Constitution in Brief 13th Amendment –Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. –Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 14th Amendment –All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) During the period of reconstruction following the war, a number of civil rights laws were enacted by Congress with the intent of extending civil rights to black Americans. In 1896 the Supreme Court again gave discrimination the force of law. Its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) established the principle of separate-but-equal as a valid interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) In the 1930s, the NAACP developed a legal strategy to challenge the separate-but-equal doctrine in the federal courts by focusing on segregation in public elementary and secondary schools. After several court victories that chipped away at the separate-but-equal doctrine, it was finally rejected by the Supreme Court as the governing principle in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). In its decision, the Court focused on the harmful psychological effects of racial segregation on black children. A year later, the Court issued an order setting standards for school desegregation.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Integration took place relatively quickly in some states, but it moved very slowly in the South, where the Court’s decision in the Brown case was met with open hostility and outright refusals of compliance. School desegregation did not occur on a truly significant scale until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of Title VI of that act permitted the executive branch to cut off federal aid to local and state governments that discriminated on the basis of race.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Protests against unequal treatment in the 1950s and 1960s prompted the passage of the Civil Rights Act of The Civil Rights Act consisted of a number of titles, or sections, designed to strike down segregation and guarantee equal access to public facilities such as restaurants, public transportation, theaters, and hospitals.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II: Equality in Public Places Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. In the case of Heart of Atlanta v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), the Supreme Court upheld the regulation of interstate commerce as a means of outlawing segregation. To that end, Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination in public facilities because of race, color, religion, or national origin. The act applies to facilities such as motels, hotels, and restaurants that engage in interstate business.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations which have an effect upon interstate commerce. It is not a violation of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment for the federal government to prohibit private individuals from discriminating in public accommodations. It is not a violation of the 13th Amendment for the federal government to prohibit private individuals from discriminating in public accommodations. There is no basis for appellants contention that forcing them to accept black visitors is equivalent to involuntary servitude under the terms of the 13th Amendment.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) Commerce Clause in Play –Civil rights cases are distinguished because the statute in that case was based on the 14th Amendment rather than the Commerce Clause. –The legislative record of the act in question demonstrates that discrimination in public accommodations places burdens on interstate commerce.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) 5th Amendment Challenged in the Court –Since Congress had a rational basis for finding that racial discrimination by motels affected commerce, the law is a reasonable and appropriate way of achieving legitimate governments goals. –It is doubtful that appellants will suffer long term economic harm and even if they do suffer economic loss, that fact alone is not enough to invalidate the law.