Preceding History

McClung prevailed in federal district court by arguing that his business was small and had no impact on interstate commerce. He received an injunction barring the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act against his restaurant, Ollie’s Barbecue.

Facts

Now Ollie’s Barbecue was a family owned restaurant in Birmingham Alabama – located on a state highway, 11 blocks away from an interstate highway. The restaurant had refused served black people since its opening in 1927, though it did provide a take-out service for them.

In the District Court, it was found that in the 12 months preceding the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the restaurant had purchased locally approximately $150,000 worth of food, $69,000 – nearly half – of which was meat that it bought from a local supplier who had procured it from outside the State, indicating that a substantial portion of the food served in the restaurant had moved in interstate commerce.

Despite this finding, the district court concluded that if Ollie’s Barbecue were required to serve black people, it would lose a substantial amount of business and, furthermore, that in passing the Civil Rights Act, Congress had legislated a conclusive presumption that a restaurant affects interstate commerce if it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or if a substantial portion of the food which is serves has moved in commerce.

The district court held that Congress could not do this because there was no demonstrable connection between food purchased in interstate commerced and sold in a restaurant and the conclusion that discrimination in the restaurant would affect that commerce.

Issue/Question

Can the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination against people, in this case black people, by a restaurant?

Rule

“That appellee’s own contribution to demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated is far from trivial.” Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111

Analysis

In this case, McClung was of the belief that, because his restaurant was so small, it didn’t have enough of an affect on commerce for it to be subject to Congress’ regulation – that his one, measly little restaurant was far from likely to impede transient patronage to the extent that it would impact the whole of United State’s economy.

The Supreme Court disagreed, for the same reason they delivered the Wickard decision I mentioned earlier; they even backed it up with evidence. The Court cited a comparison of per capita spending by black people in restaurants, theaters, and similar establishments. The comparison indicated less spending, after discounting income differences, in areas where discrimination was widely practiced.

Conclusion

To conclude, the Court restated its centuries old position on the issue: that the power of congress in this field [commcerce] is broad and sweeping; where it keeps within its sphere and violates no express constitutional limitation, the Court will not interfere. They reversed the judgement of the lower, district court, and held that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as applied in this case, was plainly appropriate.

Follow The Case Space on Twitter!
Check out the website for written briefs and the blog: https://www.thecase.space/
Find more episodes: https://www.podcast.thecasespace.org/