Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Katzenbach v. McClung – Ollie’s BBQ

t Clark1964. Demonstrates even more clearly SCt’s approval of the use of the Commerce Clauseto reach what seemed to be overwhelmingly local activities.

t Facts. This case involved a Birmingham, Alabama restaurant called Ollie’s Barbecue. The restaurant was relatively far from any interstate highway or train or bus station, and there was no evidence that any appreciable part of its business was in serving out of state travelers. However, 46% of the food purchased by the restaurant during the previous year had been bought from a supplier who had bought it from out of state. (Recall that the Civil Rights Act applies to any restaurant a substantial portion of whose food has moved in commerce).

t Application of Act upheld. SCt upheld the Act as applied to the restaurant. As in Heart of Atlantacase, SCt observed that unavailability of accommodations dissuaded blacks from traveling in interstate commerce. The SCt returned to the Wickard v. Filburnrationale. Even though Ollie’s itself was small, and the value of food it purchased from out of state had only an insignificant effect on commerce, the restaurant’s discriminatory conduct was representative of a great deal of similar conduct throughout the country, and this conduct in the aggregate clearly had an effect on interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress was entitled to regulate the individual case.

t Deference to Congress’ findings. Nor did the fact that the bill contained no congressional findings about the impact of restaurant discrimination on commerce render the Act unconstitutional. The SCt would not scrutinize the facts to make a de novo determination of whether restaurant discrimination affected commerce. Rather, “where we find that the legislators, in light of the facts and testimony before them, have a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, our investigation is at an end.” Such a rational basis was present here.

t Koppelman:

n Unclear as to which factor determined SCt’s holding that Title II of 1964 Civil Rights Actapplied to family-owned restaurant which was close to interstate highway and which bought ½ meat from supplier who purchased it out of state. [eh? Doesn’t opinion make it clear that racial discrimination is the factor?]: (1) Where Ollie’s Barbecuepurchased its supplies; or (2) who its customers are.

n This case was a stretch; these cases should be under 13th, 14th amendments, rather than stretching CC. SC used CC because of favorable precedents (e.g. Wickard) whereas Civil War precedents were bad.

n This case implies absolutely limitless Commerce power.

Effect of Lopez

t It’s not clear whether Lopez would change the result in either Heart of Atlanta or Katzenbach. Katzenbach seems to be the more constitutionally suspect of the two, in light of Lopez.

t If the government’s belief that businesses won’t locate in areas with poor schooling (including schooling marred by gunfire) wasn’t enough of a connection to interstate commerce in Lopez, it may well be that Congress’ belief that discrimination in accommodations dissuades blacks from traveling interstate wouldn’t be enough either, if today’s SCt were revisiting Katzenbach.



t On the other hand, the core activity being regulated in Katzenbach – the furnishing of restaurant meals – is clearly “commercial” in a way that possessing a gun in a school is not.

t On balance, Katzenbach would probably be decided the same way today, because of the more obviously commercial nature of the activity being regulated.


Date: 2015-01-02; view: 1010


<== previous page | next page ==>
United States v. Darby - police power regulations - Minimum wage | Judicial abdication during New Deal
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.006 sec.)