Which case upheld the application of the Civil Rights Act to private businesses with facilities open to the public under the Commerce Clause?

Which case upheld the application of the Civil Rights Act to private businesses with facilities open to the public under the Commerce Clause?

• A. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
• B. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
• C. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)
• D. Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)

Answer: (C)

The main idea being tested is whether Congress can use the Commerce Clause to reach private businesses that serve the public and prohibit racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld that authority, ruling that the Civil Rights Act’s public accommodations provisions apply to private hotels and motels that serve interstate travelers because discrimination by those establishments has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The motel argued that as a private business it couldn’t be regulated, but the Court held that the travel and commerce connected with such establishments mean their discriminatory policies hinder the flow of interstate commerce, so Congress can regulate them under the Commerce Clause. The other listed cases concern university admissions and affirmative action, not private businesses open to the public under the Civil Rights Act, so they don’t address this issue.

The main idea being tested is whether Congress can use the Commerce Clause to reach private businesses that serve the public and prohibit racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld that authority, ruling that the Civil Rights Act’s public accommodations provisions apply to private hotels and motels that serve interstate travelers because discrimination by those establishments has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The motel argued that as a private business it couldn’t be regulated, but the Court held that the travel and commerce connected with such establishments mean their discriminatory policies hinder the flow of interstate commerce, so Congress can regulate them under the Commerce Clause. The other listed cases concern university admissions and affirmative action, not private businesses open to the public under the Civil Rights Act, so they don’t address this issue.