The Heart of Atlanta Motel was a large motel in Atlanta, Georgia, with 216 rooms located near interstate highways and advertised nationally. The motel served interstate travelers and derived approximately 75% of its registered guests from out-of-state. Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the motel had a policy of refusing to rent rooms to African Americans.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title II, prohibited discrimination in places of public accommodation, including hotels and motels that served interstate travelers or affected interstate commerce. The Heart of Atlanta Motel challenged the constitutionality of this provision, arguing that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate local businesses' choice of customers.

The motel sought declaratory relief and an injunction to prevent enforcement of the Act, claiming that the law exceeded congressional power and violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by forcing them to serve customers against their will.

Congress may regulate local activities under the Commerce Clause if they have a substantial and harmful effect on interstate commerce. Racial discrimination in public accommodations serving interstate travelers burdens interstate commerce by deterring travel and imposing artificial restrictions on the free flow of commerce.

The Commerce Clause grants Congress broad power to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce, including the authority to remove obstructions to interstate travel and commerce caused by discriminatory practices.

Interstate Commerce Connection: The Court found clear evidence that racial discrimination in public accommodations substantially affected interstate commerce. The motel served interstate travelers, advertised nationally, and was located near interstate highways, establishing a direct connection to interstate commerce.

Burden on Interstate Travel: Discrimination created artificial restrictions on interstate travel by limiting where African Americans could stay, eat, and obtain services while traveling. This deterred travel and imposed additional costs and burdens on interstate commerce.

Congressional Findings: The Court deferred to extensive congressional findings that discrimination in public accommodations had a substantial and harmful effect on interstate commerce, supported by testimony and evidence gathered during legislative hearings.

Broad Commerce Power: The Court reaffirmed that Congress has broad authority under the Commerce Clause to address moral and social problems when they substantially affect interstate commerce, rejecting arguments that such regulation exceeded federal power.

The Court rejected the motel's Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment challenges, holding that the law did not constitute a taking of property or involuntary servitude, but rather a valid regulation of business practices affecting interstate commerce.

This case provided crucial constitutional support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enabling federal enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations. It demonstrated how the Commerce Clause could be used as a tool for social reform and civil rights protection.

The decision established that Congress could address moral and social problems through its commerce power when those problems substantially affected interstate commerce. This expanded the federal government's ability to combat discrimination and promote civil rights.

The case, along with Katzenbach v. McClung (decided the same day), provided the legal foundation for federal civil rights enforcement and helped dismantle the legal framework of segregation in public accommodations across the United States.