C. HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. UNITED STATES.

1. Facts. Owner of Motel refused to rent rooms to blacks. This was in violation of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act.

a. Contact With Interstate Commerce. The motel was two interstate highways, derived
75% of its occupancy from out-of-state guests, and solicited business in national
advertisements.

2. Motel Owner's Argument. The motel owner argued that Congress had exceeded its power to
regulate commerce.

3. District Court Rulings. The district court said that the 1964 Civil Right Act was constitutional as
it was applied to this case. The owner appealed.

4. US Supreme Court's Ruling. The Supreme Court held that the motel could constitutionally be
reached by the Civil Rights Act, under the Commerce Clause.

a. KEY POINTS.

(1) The court took note of Congress' findings that racial discrimination discouraged
travel on the part of a substantial portion of the black community, THEREFORE
such discrimination could be regulated by Congress.

(2) The court also held that Congress had the power to regulate local incidents if it
could have an effect on Commerce.

(A) QUESTION. MR?? How could racial discrimination discourage travel?

D. The Power of the State to Regulate. We talked earlier about the power of the state to regulate activity
within its own borders.

1. We stated, that states may regulate private activities to protect or to promote the public health,
safety, morals, or general welfare of its citizens.

2. MR????, what happens when state regulations interfere with Interstate Commerce?

3. Answer. The court usually applies what is called a "balancing approach."

a. In essence, they look at the merit and benefit to the state and compare this to the burden
being placed on interstate commerce.

VI. SUPREMACY CLAUSE. Article VI of the Constitution provides that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the
United States are the "supreme Law of the Land."

A. MR???, what does this mean (In your own words)

1. Answer. Where there is a direct conflict between a federal law and a state law, the state law is
simply INVALID. FEDERAL LAW IS SAID TO "PREEMPT STATE LAW.

B. FACTORS. In order to determine whether a federal law preempts a state law, the courts must first
determine Congress' intent.

18