Katzenbach v. McClung

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Constitutional Law

379 U.S. 294 (1964)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseCivil Rights Act of 1964Public AccommodationsTitle IIrestaurantsinterstate commercesubstantial economic effect

Facts

Ollie’s Barbecue was a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, with seating for 220 customers, and it refused to serve Negroes in its dining accommodations while offering take-out service to them. In the year before the Act, it purchased about $150,000 in food locally, including $69,683 in meat bought from a local supplier who had procured it from outside Alabama, and the District Court found that a substantial portion of the food served had moved in interstate commerce. The restaurant admitted that it fell within Title II’s coverage provisions. There was no claim that interstate travelers frequented the restaurant and no claim that Alabama supported the discrimination.

Issue

Whether Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as applied to a local restaurant that serves food a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce, is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. Also presented was whether the Court should entertain the suit despite objections to equitable jurisdiction.

Rule

Congress may regulate intrastate activities when they exert a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce or when regulation of them is an appropriate means to the effective execution of Congress’s commerce power. Where Congress had a rational basis, based on facts and testimony before it, for finding that a class of discriminatory conduct burdens interstate commerce, courts do not require case-by-case proof of effect in each establishment; they ask only whether the regulated establishment falls within the statutory criteria.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Maple Street Grill is a 90-seat restaurant in Toledo, Ohio. It serves only local customers and does not advertise to travelers, but 55% of the meat and produce it serves are bought from an Ohio distributor that sources those items from Michigan and Indiana. The owner refuses to seat Black patrons in the dining room, though takeout is available to everyone.

If Congress applies a federal public-accommodations law covering restaurants that serve a substantial portion of food that has moved in commerce, is the law constitutional as applied to Maple Street Grill?

Explanation. The majority held that Congress may reach local restaurant discrimination under the Commerce Clause where the restaurant serves food a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce. The Court asked whether Congress had a rational basis for finding that this class of discrimination burdens commerce, not whether the individual restaurant independently caused a proven interstate effect. State involvement was not required for the Commerce Clause holding.