Filed Date: July 31, 1964
Closed Date: Dec. 14, 1964
Clearinghouse coding complete
This lawsuit is about the scope of the federal government's power to prohibit race discrimination by private entities. It involved Ollie's, a Birmingham, AL restaurant that refused to provide sit-in dining to Black customers (Montgomery Advertiser, Dec. 17, 1964). On July 31, 1964, the owners sued the Attorney General of the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to prevent enforcement against them of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits providers of public accommodations from discriminating based on race. They argued that Title II was unconstitutional as applied to them as beyond Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce and sought injunctive relief.
At first, the United States argued that Title II did not apply to Ollie's because Ollie's did not advertise to or frequently serve interstate travelers. But the court (a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Gewin, Lynne, and Grooms) found that the government intended “to enforce the provisions of title II against its violators” and ruled that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. The court found that there were only three possible sources for Congressional power to sustain the Act: the Thirteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Commerce Clause. The defendants did not attempt to defend the law under the Thirteenth Amendment, and the court ruled that the Civil Rights Act could not be applied under the Fourteenth Amendment because the State of Alabama was not involved directly. The court also held that the Commerce Clause was insufficient justification, because to find interstate commerce here would be to find it everywhere, and thus, subject everything to congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Instead, the court found that the law was invalid and enjoined it on September 17, 1964. 233 F. Supp. 815.
The defendants appealed the same day, and the case went up to the Supreme Court. Justice Hugo Black, a Birmingham native and former member of the Ku Klux Klan, entered an order staying the judgement. (That displeased his wife, who regularly dined at Ollie's.)
The Supreme Court ultimately held that Ollie's discriminatory practices affected interstate commerce by reducing spending and interstate travel by Black persons, and by deterring highly skilled people from moving into areas with more discrimination, thus restricting the growth of industry there. As a result, application of Title II to Ollie's was within Congress's commerce power. So, the Court reversed the judgment below. 379 U.S. 294. The Court decided this case at the same time it decided Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, which raised the similar issue of discrimination by hotels. 379 U.S. 241.
For more information on the Supreme Court's deliberations in this case, including draft opinions and letters between the Justices, see here.
Soon after the Supreme Court's decision was announced, five Black customers walked into the restaurant and were served (Time Magazine Dec. 1964).
Summary Authors
Samuel Poortenga (4/7/2021)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Northern District of Georgia (1964)
Black, Hugo Lafayette (District of Columbia)
Brennan, William Joseph Jr. (District of Columbia)
Clark, Tom C. (District of Columbia)
Choppin, Gerald P. (District of Columbia)
Bruton, T W (North Carolina)
Black, Hugo Lafayette (District of Columbia)
Brennan, William Joseph Jr. (District of Columbia)
Clark, Tom C. (District of Columbia)
Douglas, William Orville (District of Columbia)
Gewin, Walter Pettus (Alabama)
Goldberg, Arthur Joseph (District of Columbia)
Grooms, Harlan Hobart (Alabama)
Harlan [elder], John Marshall (District of Columbia)
Lynne, Seybourn Harris (Alabama)
Stewart, Potter (District of Columbia)
Warren, Earl (District of Columbia)
White, Byron Raymond (District of Columbia)
Last updated April 21, 2024, 3:04 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Alabama
Case Type(s):
Public Accommodations/Contracting
Special Collection(s):
Civil Rights Division Archival Collection
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 31, 1964
Closing Date: Dec. 14, 1964
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Restaurant owner who was discriminating against Black customers.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Access to public accommodations - privately owned
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Race:
Type of Facility: