Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan
Headline: Court upheld Michigan law applying civil-rights ban on racial exclusion to a ferry company that refused a Black passenger, allowing the State to punish and bar such discrimination on this localized Detroit-to-Canada excursion service.
Holding: The Court held that the federal commerce power did not prevent Michigan from applying its civil-rights law to convict the ferry company for excluding a Black passenger, and it affirmed the company’s conviction.
- Allows states to apply civil-rights laws to localized ferry services that cross international boundary.
- Affirms criminal fines and potential civil damages for operators who refuse Black passengers.
- Makes operators of similar excursions subject to state enforcement for racial exclusion.
Summary
Background
A Michigan company owned most of Bois Blanc Island (called “Bob-Lo”) in Ontario and ran an amusement park served by two steamships carrying Detroit residents on one-day round trips. The company had a policy excluding “colored” people. In June 1945 Sarah Elizabeth Ray, a Black member of a Detroit ordnance district class, was denied passage, escorted ashore, and offered a refund. She refused the refund. The company was criminally prosecuted under Michigan’s civil rights statute, convicted and fined, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed before the case reached this Court.
Reasoning
The narrow legal question was whether the federal power to regulate foreign commerce prevented Michigan from applying its civil-rights law to this excursion service. The Court accepted that the trips involved foreign commerce because the island is Canadian and the boats crossed the international boundary. But the Court found the business was highly localized: round-trip tickets began and ended in Detroit, there were no intermediate stops or freight, patrons were mainly Detroit residents, and the island’s activity served only those patrons. Given those facts, the Court held Michigan could apply its statute without creating an undue conflict with federal or Canadian regulation and therefore affirmed the conviction.
Real world impact
The decision permits states to enforce civil-rights laws against small, locally run excursion or ferry services that exclude passengers by race. Similar operators can face criminal fines and civil liability for racial exclusion. The ruling rests on the particular localized facts and does not prevent Congress or treaty action from changing the outcome.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Douglas concurred, emphasizing states may require carriers to serve all persons regardless of race. Justice Jackson dissented, warning that treating foreign commerce case-by-case invites uncertainty and that foreign commerce should be free from local regulation.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?