Who wrote the majority opinion for the Heart of Atlanta Motel v US case?

Answer 1

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, 379 US 241 (1964) was a unanimous (9-0) decision of the Warren Court that validated Congress use of the Interstate Commerce Clause as a means of enabling Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Justice Tom C. Clark wrote the majority opinion. Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas and Arthur Goldberg each wrote concurring opinions, agreeing with the decision but expanding on the reasoning in the majority opinion.

Justice Hugo Black's Concurrence

Justice Black reminded the Court that the undisputed reason for bringing suit in this and other named cases, was the intention of the businesses to continue a policy of racial discrimination.

Black contended that Congress acted within the plain and accepted meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause, as supported by earlier precedents, and that the interpretation of Congress' constitutional powers could not be "limited to a narrow, technical concept." [One that would support racial discrimination based on a narrow and distorted textual interpretation of the Constitution.]

Black further reminded the Court that the Necessary and Proper Clause enhanced the authority of Congress to regulate businesses located within a single state if their activities introduced a burden to interstate commerce.

Justice William O. Douglas' Concurrence

Justice Douglas joined the Court's opinion, but expressed reluctance to rely solely on the power invoked under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Douglas opined that the Act should appropriately rest on the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads:

Section 1

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (and)

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Douglas also noted that English common law had long ago rejected arguments similar to those raised by the petitioner.

Justice Arthur Goldberg's Concurrence

Justice Goldberg asserted that the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"...is the vindication of human dignity, and not mere economics. The Senate Commerce Committee made this quite clear:

"The primary purpose of . . . [the Civil Rights Act], then, is to solve this problem, the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments. Discrimination is not simply dollars and cents, Hamburgers and movies; it is the humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment that a person must surely feel when he is told that he is unacceptable as a member of the public because of his race or color. It is equally the inability to explain to a child that, regardless of education, civility, courtesy, and morality, he will be denied the right to enjoy equal treatment even though he be a citizen of the United States and may well be called upon to lay down his life to assure this Nation continues."

On this basis, Justice Goldberg concluded the text and intention of the Act clearly derived from the Fourteenth amendment, and reminded the Court that an earlier draft of the legislation had stated as much, but more clearly than the final legislation.

Answer 2

Justice Tom C. Clark wrote the majority opinion (opinion of the Court) for Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States,379 US 241 (1964).