- [Narrator] Article one, Section eight
of the United States Constitution,
popularly known as the Commerce Clause,
grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has used this power to regulate commercial goods,
products, activities, and travel between states.
In the modern era, the United States Supreme Court
has interpreted this power broadly, allowing Congress
to regulate in-state activities that have
a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
In the 1960's, Congress used its Commerce Clause power
to combat racial discrimination
by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Congress passed the act to prevent discrimination
on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.
Title II of the act granted a right of equal access
to places of public accommodation that affect
interstate commerce, including hotels and restaurants.
On the same day in 1964, the court issued two decisions
that addressed challenges to Title II of the Act.
In Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. US, the court upheld
the constitutionality of Title II as applied to hotels.
Then in Katzenbach v. McClung, the court
turned its attention to restaurants.
Under the act, a restaurant affects interstate commerce
if it serves interstate travelers or if a substantial
portion of its food comes from another state.
Ollie McClung owned and operated a local restaurant
called Ollie's Bar-B-Q in Birmingham, Alabama.
Ollie's Bar-B-Q was located next to an interstate highway,
and 46% of the food served at the restaurant
came from another state.
Since its opening in 1927, Ollie's Bar-B-Q
had refused to seat and serve black people.
This violated the right to equal access
under the Civil Rights Act.
McClung filed a complaint against the federal government,
which was represented by Attorney General
Nicholas Katzenbach in the United States District Court
for the northern district of Alabama.
McClung argued that the act was unconstitutional
as applied to his restaurant, which had virtually
no effect on interstate commerce.
The District Court agreed, finding that there wasn't
a close enough connection between discrimination
at Ollie's Bar-B-Q and the food purchased
by the restaurant in interstate commerce.
Katzenbach appealed the District Court's decision
directly to the United States Supreme Court.
The issue on appeal was whether Congress had exceeded
its power under the Commerce Clause by applying Title II
of the Civil Rights Act to local restaurants.
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Clark held
that the court must uphold legislation enacted
under the Commerce Clause when it finds that Congress
had a rational basis for concluding that the regulated
activity substantially affects interstate commerce.
At the lower court hearings, evidence showed
that black people spent less money in areas
where racial discrimination was widely practiced.
Also, restaurants that refused to serve black people
had fewer customers, and thus bought and sold
less food through interstate commerce.
Finally, black people were less likely to travel
between states due to racial discrimination in restaurants.
Therefore, based on this evidence, the court held
that congress had a rational basis for concluding
that racial discrimination in restaurants
had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act as applied
to McClung's restaurant was a constitutional exercise
of Congress's commerce power.
The district court's judgment was reversed.
Justice Black concurred.
Black wrote that the Commerce Clause,
in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause,
gave Congress the power to regulate local entities
that burden the flow of interstate commerce.
Justice Douglas also concurred.
Douglas believed that Congress's power to enact Title II
came from both the Commerce Clause as well
as the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Douglas argued that basing the decision
on equal-protection grounds would have had
a more definitive effect because it could end
discrimination in all places of public accommodation
regardless of their effect on interstate commerce.
Finally, justice Goldberg's concurrence
found clear authorization from both the Commerce Clause
and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Goldberg emphasized that the purpose of Title II
wasn't to regulate commerce, but rather to protect
human dignity against discriminatory conduct.
Katzenbach v. McClung is significant for finding
that Congress could use its commerce power to combat
racial discrimination in places of public accommodation.
This decision also promoted judicial deference
to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.