Which case applied the Civil Rights Act to private restaurants serving interstate commerce?

• A. Plessy v. Ferguson
• B. Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
• C. United States v. Lopez
• D. Reed v. Reed

Answer: (B)

The essential idea is that Congress can regulate private businesses under the Commerce Clause when their operations affect interstate commerce, allowing the Civil Rights Act to reach private public accommodations that discriminate.

Katzenbach v. McClung involved Ollie’s Barbecue, a private restaurant in Alabama that refused service to Black customers. The Court held that the Civil Rights Act could apply to such a private dining establishment because its business was tied to interstate commerce: it relied on customers who traveled across state lines and used meat shipped from outside Alabama. Because the restaurant’s discriminatory practices impeded the movement of people and goods across state borders, they had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, justifying federal enforcement under Title II of the Civil Rights Act.

In practice, this case shows how the federal government can reach private businesses that serve the public if their discriminatory conduct has a real connection to interstate commerce. It isn’t about public vs. private in a general sense, but about whether the activity meaningfully involves interstate commerce and thus falls within Congress’s regulatory power.

For contrast, Plessy v. Ferguson is about racial segregation principles established long before the Civil Rights Act and does not address applying the Act to private restaurants. United States v. Lopez deals with limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause power, not the reach of civil rights protections in private accommodations. Reed v. Reed concerns gender discrimination in probate matters, not civil rights in public accommodations.