Katzenbach v. McClung

E9688

Commerce Clause case United States Supreme Court case landmark civil rights case

Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (4)

Label	Occurrences
Katzenbach v. McClung canonical	18
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)	1
Supreme Court’s analysis in Katzenbach v. McClung	1
the majority opinion in Katzenbach v. McClung	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T33113 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Katzenbach v. McClung
Context triple: [Commerce Clause, interpretedInCase, Katzenbach v. McClung]

A. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by affirming Congress’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause.
B. Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
C. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
D. Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
E. Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Katzenbach v. McClung
Target entity description: Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by affirming Congress’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause.
B. Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
C. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
D. Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
E. Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Commerce Clause case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ landmark civil rights case ⓘ
alsoKnownAs	Ollie’s Barbecue case ⓘ
appliedStatute	Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ
areaOfLaw	civil rights law ⓘ commerce power jurisprudence ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ
arguedDate	1964-10-08 ⓘ
citation	379 U.S. 294 ⓘ
constitutionalProvision	Commerce Clause ⓘ surface form: Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ surface form: Fourteenth Amendment (referenced but not primary basis)
country	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1964-12-14 ⓘ
decisionType	unanimous decision ⓘ
docketNumber	543 ⓘ
enforcedBy	United States Department of Justice ⓘ
factFinding	Ollie’s Barbecue purchased a substantial portion of its food from out-of-state suppliers ⓘ Ollie’s Barbecue refused to serve Black customers in its dining area ⓘ
fullName	Katzenbach v. McClung self-link ⓘ
holding	Congress may prohibit racial discrimination in restaurants under the Commerce Clause ⓘ Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States ⓘ surface form: Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress’s commerce power as applied to local restaurants racial discrimination in restaurants serving food that has moved in interstate commerce may be regulated by Congress ⓘ
impact	expanded federal authority to combat racial discrimination in local businesses ⓘ reinforced broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States federal jurisdiction ⓘ
languageOfProceeding	English ⓘ
legalIssue	constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause ⓘ
locationOfBusiness	Birmingham, Alabama, United States ⓘ surface form: Birmingham, Alabama
majorityOpinionBy	Tom C. Clark ⓘ surface form: Justice Tom C. Clark
pageInUnitedStatesReports	294 ⓘ
petitioner	Nicholas deB. Katzenbach ⓘ
petitionerRole	United States Attorney General ⓘ surface form: Acting Attorney General of the United States
precededBy	Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States ⓘ surface form: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (decided same day, companion case)
precedentFor	later Commerce Clause civil rights cases ⓘ
relatedCase	Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States ⓘ
relatedLegislation	Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ
respondent	Ollie McClung, Sr. ⓘ
respondentBusiness	Ollie’s Barbecue ⓘ
resultForRespondent	restaurant required to desegregate under federal law ⓘ
subjectMatter	federal regulation of local businesses ⓘ racial discrimination in public accommodations ⓘ
timePeriod	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ surface form: Warren Court
topic	public accommodations and interstate commerce ⓘ
volumeInUnitedStatesReports	379 ⓘ
vote	9–0 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (21)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Commerce Clause → interpretedInCase → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States → relatedCase → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

Civil Rights Act of 1964 → upheldByCourtCase → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

Katzenbach v. McClung → fullName → Katzenbach v. McClung self-link ⓘ

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause → relatedCase → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

Title II – Public Accommodations → upheldByCase → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

CRA 1964 → relatedCaseLaw → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

subject surface form: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Ollie’s Barbecue case → hasOfficialName → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

Ollie McClung, Sr. → partyTo → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

Ollie’s Barbecue → subjectOf → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

Ollie’s Barbecue → involvedInCourtCase → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 → upheldIn → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

Ollie’s Barbecue purchased a substantial portion of its food from out-of-state suppliers → isRelevantToCase → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

Ollie’s Barbecue purchased a substantial portion of its food from out-of-state suppliers → isPartOfReasoningIn → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

this entity surface form: Supreme Court’s analysis in Katzenbach v. McClung

Ollie’s Barbecue purchased a substantial portion of its food from out-of-state suppliers → isDiscussedIn → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

this entity surface form: the majority opinion in Katzenbach v. McClung

Ollie’s Barbecue refused to serve Black customers in its dining area → challengedInCase → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

Ollie’s Barbecue refused to serve Black customers in its dining area → relatedSupremeCourtDecision → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

this entity surface form: Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)

Public Law 88-352 → subjectOf → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

McClung → involvedInCourtCase → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

McClung family → legalCase → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

McClung family → partyIn → Katzenbach v. McClung ⓘ

All labels observed (4)

How this entity was disambiguated Show

Statements (48)

How these facts were elicited Show

Referenced by (21)

How this entity was disambiguated

How these facts were elicited