Hamm v. City of Rock Hill

1964-12-14

Headline: 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.

Holding:

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: sit-in protests, racial discrimination, public accommodations, Civil Rights Act

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.