Katzenbach v. McClung
The Court ruled that Congress could require Ollie's Barbecue, a family restaurant in Birmingham that bought a large share of its food from out of state, to stop refusing service to Black customers under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The decision confirmed that Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce reaches even small, local businesses if their operations are tied to the flow of goods across state lines, cementing the constitutional basis for nationwide desegregation of restaurants.
How it got here: A federal trial court blocked enforcement of the Civil Rights Act against the restaurant; the government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Ollie's Barbecue, a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, had refused to serve Black customers in its dining room since 1927, offering only take-out service to them. About 46% of the meat it purchased had originally moved in interstate commerce before reaching a local supplier. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took effect, the restaurant's owners sued to block its enforcement against them.
The question before the Court
Could Congress use its power over interstate commerce to force a family-owned restaurant to serve Black customers, just because much of its food had once crossed state lines?
Why it matters
Restaurants across the country that bought ingredients shipped from other states could no longer legally refuse service based on race, regardless of how local and small their business seemed. The ruling gave civil rights enforcement a durable constitutional foundation in the Commerce Clause rather than a more contested one, making it harder for businesses to escape desegregation requirements by claiming they were purely local operations.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision reversing the district court's injunction, so Ollie's Barbecue and similarly situated restaurants covered by Title II must comply with the Act's nondiscrimination requirement. Because the ruling rests on the same reasoning as the companion Heart of Atlanta Motel decision, together the two rulings foreclosed further Commerce Clause challenges to Title II's coverage of hotels, motels, and restaurants tied to interstate commerce.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Black
Justice Black wrote separately to concur in the judgment. The excerpted opinion text does not include the substance of his reasoning beyond noting that his concurrence appears elsewhere in the reports.
Concurrence — Justice Douglas
Justice Douglas wrote separately to concur in the judgment. The excerpted opinion text does not include the substance of his reasoning beyond noting that his concurrence appears elsewhere in the reports.
Concurrence — Justice Goldberg
Justice Goldberg wrote separately to concur in the judgment. The excerpted opinion text does not include the substance of his reasoning beyond noting that his concurrence appears elsewhere in the reports.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first addressed a jurisdictional objection, treating the complaint as effectively seeking a declaratory judgment under federal law even though the Act itself provided a special statutory procedure for such disputes, because the urgency of resolving the constitutional question justified reaching the merits.
- Turning to the merits, the Court applied the rule that Congress may regulate local, intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause when that activity, taken together with similar activity elsewhere, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce -- even if any single business's contribution looks small by itself.
- The Court reviewed the congressional hearings behind the Act and found extensive testimony that racial discrimination in restaurants suppressed Black customers' spending, discouraged interstate travel, and depressed local business conditions, giving Congress a rational basis to conclude that such discrimination burdened interstate commerce nationally.
- The Court rejected the restaurant's argument that Congress needed to make a case-by-case showing that discrimination at this particular restaurant affected commerce, holding that Congress may itself determine which categories of activity affect commerce and that courts need only check whether that determination has a rational basis.
- Applying that rational-basis approach to the restaurant's own facts -- roughly $70,000 a year in food that had moved in interstate commerce -- the Court concluded Congress could reasonably treat this restaurant's discrimination as part of the broader burden on interstate commerce that the Act targeted.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Heart of Atlanta Motel
Relies on the companion case's holding that Title II is a valid exercise of Congress's commerce power.
Reaffirms Wickard v. Filburn (317 U. S. 111)
Uses its reasoning that even a trivial individual contribution to commerce can be regulated when combined with others.
Reaffirms United States v. Darby (312 U. S. 100)
Relies on its approval of Congress declaring by statute that an activity affects commerce without case-by-case proof.
Reaffirms Gibbons v. Ogden
Reaffirms the long-standing rule defining the outer limits of activities beyond Congress's commerce power.