Hamm v. City of Rock Hill (1964)
- Docket
- 2
- Decided
- 1964-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Did the Civil Rights Act forbid discrimination towards black customers at McCrory’s Five and Ten Cent Store if Hamm’s appeal was pending when the law took effect? Conclusion: Yes. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Tom C. Clark, the Court held in a combined case that sit-in demonstrations could not be the subject of federal or state trespass prosecutions, and that any such convictions on appeal must be reversed. Justice Clark noted that the Court historically gave weight to the common law doctrine of abatement, which applied changes in law that occur after a trial court’s judgment but before the decision of an appellate court to the original judgment. He explained that this rule did not depend on the explicit intention of Congress. As the Civil Rights Act clearly prevented the federal prosecution of individuals for attempting to make use of public accommodations, Justice Clark held that it must also prevent state prosecutions through the supremacy clause. He declined to answer the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment alone prevented similar prosecutions at the state or federal level. Justices William O. Douglas and Arthur J. Goldberg concurred. Justice Douglas characterized the Civil Rights Act as a means of enforcing protections already enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, there was no real issue with applying it retroactively to already unconstitutional state prosecutions. Justice Hugo Black dissented. He read nothing in the Civil Rights Act to suggest that Congress intended to reverse sit-in trespassing convictions that occurred before the act took effect. Justice John Harlan dissented. He rejected the majority’s assumption that the doctrine of abatement required courts to apply a federal change in law to Hamm’s state conviction through the supremacy clause. Justice Potter Stewart dissented. He argued that a state’s abatement policy was determined by that state, not by federal courts. Justice Byron White dissented. He could not discern any constitutional problem with Hamm’s state court conviction, and was confident that Congress did not intent to abate similar existing convictions through the Civil Rights Act. He noted Congress’ silence on the issue.