Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0379_0241_ZC1.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-25 15:54:21
Document Index: 780154146

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 202', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 202', '§ 201', '§ 201']

We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are [p281] not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.
The "means" used in the present Act are, in my view, "appropriate" and "plainly adapted" to the end of enforcing Fourteenth Amendment rights [n1] as well as protecting interstate commerce.
The rights protected are clearly within the purview of our decisions under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n2] [p282]
That definition is within our decision of Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, for the "discrimination" in the present cases is "enforced by officials of the State," i.e., by the state judiciary under the trespass laws. [n3] As we wrote in Shelley v. Kraemer, supra, 19: We have no doubt that there has been state action in these cases in the full and complete sense of the phrase. The undisputed facts disclose that petitioners were willing purchasers of properties upon which they desired to establish homes. The owners of the properties were willing sellers, and contracts of sale were accordingly consummated. It is clear that, but for the active intervention of the state courts, supported by the full panoply of state power, petitioners would have been free to occupy the properties in question without restraint.
These are not cases, as has been suggested, in which the States have merely abstained from action, leaving private individuals free to impose such discriminations as they see fit. Rather, these are cases in which the States have made available to such individuals [p283] the full coercive power of government to deny to petitioners, on the grounds of race or color, the enjoyment of property rights in premises which petitioners are willing and financially able to acquire and which the grantors are willing to sell. The difference between judicial enforcement and nonenforcement of the restrictive covenants is the difference to petitioners between being denied rights of property available to other members of the community and being accorded full enjoyment of those rights on an equal footing.
which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor [p284] of such establishment as his residence.
The Senate Committee laid emphasis on the Commerce Clause. S.Rep. No. 872, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 12-13. The use of the Commerce Clause to surmount what was thought to be the obstacle of the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, is mentioned. Ibid. And the economic aspects of the problems of discrimination are heavily accented. Id. p. 17 et seq. But it is clear that the objectives of the Fourteenth Amendment were by no means ignored. As stated in the Senate Report: Does the owner of private property devoted to use as a public establishment enjoy a property right to refuse to deal with any member of the public because of that member's race, religion, or national origin? As noted previously, the English common law answered this question in the negative. It reasoned that one who employed his private property for purposes of commercial gain by offering goods or services to the public must stick to his bargain. It is to be remembered that the right of the private [p285] property owner to serve or sell to whom he pleased was never claimed when laws were enacted prohibiting the private property owner from dealing with persons of a particular race. Nor were such laws ever struck down as an infringement upon this supposed right of the property owner.
There is not any question that ordinary zoning laws place far greater restrictions upon the rights of private property owners than would public accommodations [p286] legislation. Zoning laws tell the owner of private property to what type of business his property may be devoted, what structures he may erect upon that property, and even whether he may devote his private property to any business purpose whatsoever. Such laws and regulations restricting private property are necessary so that human beings may develop their communities in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Surely the presence of such restrictions does not detract from the role of private property in securing individual liberty and freedom.
Unlike the Act as it finally became law, this bill (a) contained findings (pp. 10-13) which described discrimination [p287] in places of public accommodation and in findings (h) and (i) connected this discrimination to state action and invoked Fourteenth Amendment powers to deal with the problem, and (b) in setting forth the public establishments which were covered, it used only commerce-type language, and did not contain anything like the present § 201(d) and its link to § 201(b) -- the "or" clause in § 201(b). Nor did the bill contain the present § 202.
The Attorney General testified against portions of this bill. He reiterated that the administration bill rested on the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as on the Commerce Clause: see Hearings, House Judiciary Committee on H.R. 7152, as amended by Subcommittee No. 5, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 2693, 2700, 2764. But this bill added for the first time a provision similar to the present § 201(d) -- only much broader. See id. at 2656, first full paragraph. (Apparently this addition was in response to the urgings of those who wanted to broaden the bill and who failed to comprehend that the administration bill already rested, despite its commerce language, on the Fourteenth Amendment.) The Attorney General feared that the new provision went too far. Further, the new provision, unlike the present § 201(d) but like the present § 202, did not limit coverage to those establishments specifically defined as places of public accommodation; rather, it referred to all businesses operating under state [p288] "authorization, permission, or license." See id. at 2656. The Attorney General objected to this: Congress ought not to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment generally, but rather ought to specify the establishments that would be covered. See id. at 2656, 2675-2676, 2726. This the administration bill had done by covering only those establishments which had certain commercial characteristics.
Congressman Celler introduced into the Congressional Record a series of memoranda on the constitutionality of the various titles of the bill; at pp. 1524-1526 [*] the Fourteenth Amendment is discussed; at p. 1526, it is suggested that the Thirteenth Amendment is to be regarded as "additional authority" for the legislation.
At p. 1917, Congressman Willis introduces an amendment to strike out "transient guests" and to replace these words with "interstate travelers." As reported, says Congressman Willis, the bill boldly undertakes to regulate intrastate commerce, at least to this extent. Ibid. The purpose of the amendment is simply to relate "this bill to the powers of Congress." Ibid. Congressman Celler, the floor manager of the bill, will not accept the amendment, which introduces an element of uncertainty into the scope of the bill's coverage. At p. 1924, Congressman [p290] Lindsay makes remarks indicating that it is his understanding that the commerce language portions of § 201 rest only on the Commerce Clause, while the Fourteenth Amendment is invoked to support only § 201(d).
[C]ustom or usage is not constituted merely by a practice in a neighborhood or by popular attitude in a particular community. It consists of a practice which, though not embodied in law, receives notice and sanction to the extent that it is enforced by [p291] the officialdom of the State or locality