Hamm v. City of Rock Hill
Court vacates convictions of Black sit-in demonstrators, ruling the Civil Rights Act forbids prosecuting peaceful attempts to be served at lunch counters and requires dismissal of pending state trespass charges.
Real-world impact
- Prevents prosecuting peaceful sit-in demonstrators for acts covered by the Civil Rights Act.
- Requires dismissal of pending state trespass convictions for covered lunch counter sit-ins.
- Shifts enforcement over lunch-counter discrimination to the federal statute, limiting state prosecutions
Topics
Summary
Background
Two groups of Black demonstrators staged sit-ins at lunch counters inside retail stores in South Carolina and Arkansas. In Rock Hill they went to a McCrory’s store lunch counter; in Little Rock they went to the Gus Blass department store tearoom. Store managers refused service, asked the demonstrators to leave, and called police. The demonstrators were arrested and convicted under state trespass statutes; those convictions were affirmed in state courts before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether Title II of the Civil Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in places of public accommodation, covers these lunch counters and whether the Act prevents prosecution for peaceful attempts to be served. The Court concluded the counters were covered, that the Act creates a right to equal service, and that §203 bars punishment for exercising or trying to exercise that right. Applying a longstanding federal rule that a new law that removes a crime will abate pending convictions, and the Supremacy Clause, the Court held the pending state convictions conflict with the federal statute and must be vacated.
Real world impact
The ruling means peaceful sit-in demonstrators who sought service at covered lunch counters cannot be prosecuted under state trespass laws for the same acts while those convictions remained pending when the Act took effect. Retail lunch counters and local prosecutors lose the ability to sustain the earlier prosecutions where the Act applies. The Court avoided deciding whether the Fourteenth Amendment alone would bar such prosecutions.
Dissents or concurrances
Some Justices concurred, emphasizing congressional power to protect equal-treatment rights; several dissenting Justices warned Congress did not clearly intend to abate earlier state convictions and raised concerns about a federal saving statute and federalism.
Opinions in this case
- 1.Opinion 106952
- 2.Opinion 9422911
- 3.Opinion 9422913
- 4.Opinion 9422914
- 5.Opinion 9422912
- 6.Opinion 9422915
- 7.Opinion 9422916
Questions, answered
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:
- “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?”