Constitutional LawThe Commerce Clause
Katzenbach v. McClung
Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 14, 1964
Full citation
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).
VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.
Katzenbach, Acting Attorney General, et al.
acting attorney generalappellants
McClung et al.
restaurant ownersappellees
Brief
Facts
Ollie's Barbecue was a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama. It specialized in barbecued meats and homemade pies and seated 220 customers. It stood on a state highway 11 blocks from an interstate one, and a somewhat greater distance from the railroad and bus stations. It served a family and white-collar trade, with take-out service for Black customers. It employed 36 people, two-thirds of them Black. Since it opened in 1927, it had refused to serve Black customers in its dining accommodations. In the 12 months before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, the restaurant bought about $150,000 worth of food locally. Of that, $69,683, or 46%, was meat from a local supplier who had gotten it from outside the State. The District Court found that a substantial portion of the food served had moved in interstate commerce. Since July 2, 1964, the restaurant had been operating in violation of the Act. The court below concluded that if the restaurant had to serve Black customers, it would lose a substantial amount of business. The restaurant admitted that the Act's provisions covered it. The Government did not claim that Alabama supported the discrimination, and no one claimed that interstate travelers frequented the restaurant.
Issues
- Did Congress have power under the Commerce Clause to forbid racial discrimination in a restaurant that serves food a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce, when no one claimed that interstate travelers ate there?
- Did Congress have a rational basis for finding that racial discrimination in such restaurants burdens interstate commerce, even though it made no formal findings and no direct evidence tied the discrimination to the flow of interstate food?
Holding
Title II, as applied to a restaurant that serves or offers to serve interstate travelers, or serves food a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce, is a valid use of the commerce power. Congress had a rational basis for finding that discrimination in such restaurants burdens interstate commerce.
IRAC
Learn the citation form
Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.
The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/katzenbach-v-mcclung