7/29/2019 Meiners Chapter 4 Case Briefs

1/2

Rafique Sheikh

CWID: 893776708

MGMT 518: Legal and Ethical Environment of Business

Chapter 4 Case Briefs:

Katzenbach v. McClung pg. 89

In Katzenbach v. McClung, Attorney General Katzenbach sued McClung the owner of

Ollies Barbecue for violating Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial

segregation in places of public accommodation. McClung contended that since his

customers were local, not traveling interstate, he should be exempt from the law. Thegovt. noted that half of the food McClung bought came from out of state, which was

enough to make the business interstate. The district court held for McClung and refused

to enforce the Act. The govt. appealed directly to the Supreme Court which concluded

that racial discrimination in restaurants had a direct and adverse effect on the free flow ofinterstate commerce. The Supreme Court found the Civil Rights Act of 1964 plainly

appropriate in the resolution of what the Congress found to be a national commercialproblem of the first magnitude and therefore held for the plaintiff.

Hughs v. Oklahoma pg. 92

In Hughs v. Oklahoma, The State of Oklahoma convicted Hughes of transporting

minnows from Oklahoma to Texas. Oklahoma prohibited shipping or selling minnows

out of state. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the statute and Hughesconviction as consistent with Oklahomas interest in protecting its natural resources.

Hughes appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concludedthat the Oklahoma Law on its face discriminates against interstate commerce. The Courtdid recognize that the States interests in conservation and protection of wild animals as

legitimate local purposes similar to the States interests in protecting the health and safety

of their citizens. However the Court found that Oklahoma had chosen to conserve itsminnows in the way that most overtly discriminates against interstate commerce. Thus

the Supreme Court held for defendant noting that, States may promote this legitimate

purpose only in ways consistent with the basic principle that our economic unit is the

Nation, and that when a wild animal becomes an article of commerceits use cannotbe limited to the citizens of one State to the exclusion of citizens of another State.

7/29/2019 Meiners Chapter 4 Case Briefs

2/2

Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission of New York pg. 100

In Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission of New York, The Commission orderedelectric utilities in New York to end all advertising that promotes the use of electricity.

In light of the commissions finding that New York utilities might not have enough

power to meet all customer demands for the winter. The commission declared allpromotional advertising contrary to the national policy of conserving energy. The New

York high court upheld the constitutionality of the Commissions regulation. The Utility

appealed to the Supreme Court which observed that the First Amendment, as applied tothe States through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects commercial speech from

unwarranted government regulation. The Court explained that the First Amendments

concern for commercial speech is based on the informational function of advertising.

Consequently, there can be no constitutional objection to the suppression of commercialmessages that do not accurately inform the public about lawful activity. The Court

applied a four-step analysis for commercial speech to the Commissions arguments in

support of its ban on promotional advertising and found that the ban satisfied the 3 parts

of the analysis but failed the critical inquiry in this case: whether the Commissionscomplete suppression of speech ordinarily protected by the First Amendment is no more

extensive than necessary to further the States interest in energy conservation. The Courtfound that the energy conservation cannot justify suppressing information about electric

devices or services that would cause no net increase in total energy use and thus held for

the plaintiff.

Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut

In Kelo v. City of New London, Suzette Kelo protested that the taking of her home by theCity violated the public use provision of the Fifth Amendment. The Connecticut courts

held the taking as proper. Kelo appealed to the US Supreme Court which found that the

Citys development plan was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiableindividuals. The Courts explained that the City has carefully formulated an economic

development plan which unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings

challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment The courtconcluded that the governments pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual

private parties and therefore held for the defendant.

Ethics Question pg 116

It is not ethical for the firm to bar an inspection by the OSHA inspector since it defeats

the purpose of unannounced inspections and gives the firm time to hide any evidence ofimproper practices.