Which case is the primary authority for the prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause?

Which case is the primary authority for the prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause?

• A. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States
• B. Miranda v. Arizona
• C. Gideon v. Wainwright
• D. Gibbons v. Ogden

Answer: (A)

Discrimination in places of public accommodation is analyzed through Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The leading Supreme Court ruling affirming that use of power to prohibit racial discrimination in such settings is Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. In that decision, the Court rejected the argument that the Civil Rights Act’s ban on discrimination in hotels and motels exceeded Congress’s authority, ruling instead that establishments serving travelers from multiple states affect interstate commerce. Because many customers cross state lines and the motel’s operation could influence travel and commerce across borders, Congress could regulate discriminatory practices in these venues. This case is the primary authority because it directly supports the application of the Commerce Clause to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations under federal law. The other cases address different issues—Miranda v. Arizona concerns police interrogation rights, Gideon v. Wainwright concerns the right to counsel, and Gibbons v. Ogden concerns the scope of the Commerce Clause more generally but not the specific prohibition in public accommodations.

Discrimination in places of public accommodation is analyzed through Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The leading Supreme Court ruling affirming that use of power to prohibit racial discrimination in such settings is Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. In that decision, the Court rejected the argument that the Civil Rights Act’s ban on discrimination in hotels and motels exceeded Congress’s authority, ruling instead that establishments serving travelers from multiple states affect interstate commerce. Because many customers cross state lines and the motel’s operation could influence travel and commerce across borders, Congress could regulate discriminatory practices in these venues. This case is the primary authority because it directly supports the application of the Commerce Clause to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations under federal law. The other cases address different issues—Miranda v. Arizona concerns police interrogation rights, Gideon v. Wainwright concerns the right to counsel, and Gibbons v. Ogden concerns the scope of the Commerce Clause more generally but not the specific prohibition in public accommodations.