Facts—Various hotels, theaters, and railway companies had denied to African Americans the full enjoyment of the accommodations thereof, contrary to the act of Congress requiring no discrimination. Those proprietors had been indicted or sued for the penalty prescribed by the act.
Question—Does the Fourteenth Amendment compel a private citizen to refrain from the practice of discrimination?
Decision—No.
Reasons—J. Bradley (8–1). The law was founded on the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment was concerned only with states practicing discrimination. It makes no mention of individual persons infringing on individual rights. If the state does not assist the discrimination of an individual against another individual, it is purely a matter between the two individuals. “In fine, the legislation which Congress is authorized to adopt in this behalf is not general legislation upon the rights of the citizen, but corrective legislation; that is, such as may be necessary and proper for counteracting such laws as the states may adopt or enforce, and which by the amendment they are prohibited from making or enforcing.”
In dissent, J. Harlan argued that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were broad in scope and intended not simply to eliminate slavery but also the “badges and incidents” thereof. Harlan further focused on the “public” character of the institutions and accommodations in question.
Note—Largely because of this decision, Congress has justified most modern legislation prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations through the exercise of its power under the commerce clause rather than under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court accepted this justification of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).
