Connection lost
Server error
Katzenbach v. McClung Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as applied to a local restaurant. The Court found Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to ban racial discrimination because the restaurant served food that had moved through interstate commerce, creating a sufficient federal nexus.
Legal Significance: This case significantly expanded Congress’s Commerce Clause power, affirming its authority to regulate purely local activities based on the interstate movement of goods used in that activity and solidifying the “aggregation principle” from Wickard v. Filburn to address civil rights violations.
Katzenbach v. McClung Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Ollie’s Barbecue was a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, that refused to serve African American customers in its dining room, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The restaurant was located 11 blocks from an interstate highway and did not primarily cater to interstate travelers. However, a substantial portion of the food it served had moved in interstate commerce. Specifically, 46% of the restaurant’s food purchases, amounting to approximately $70,000 annually, consisted of meat procured from a local supplier who had obtained it from out-of-state sources. The restaurant’s owners, the McClungs, sued to enjoin enforcement of the Act, arguing Congress exceeded its constitutional authority. The District Court agreed, finding no demonstrable connection between the restaurant’s discriminatory practices and interstate commerce. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Commerce Clause grant Congress the power to regulate racial discrimination in a local restaurant whose primary connection to interstate commerce is its purchase of food that has moved through interstate channels?
Yes. The Court held that Congress acted within its Commerce Clause power Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Commerce Clause grant Congress the power to regulate racial discrimination in a local restaurant whose primary connection to interstate commerce is its purchase of food that has moved through interstate channels?
Conclusion
*Katzenbach v. McClung* solidified an expansive view of the Commerce Clause, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum do
Legal Rule
Congress may regulate a class of local activities if it has a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut a
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the breadth of congressional power under the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad mini
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Supreme Court upheld Title II of the Civil Rights Act