80% of its guests were from out of state, more than half. Based on prior court decisions congress believed they had enough power to take this issue to court. The Heart of Atlanta Motel believed it could control whom it allowed to stay there, because it was their own business, but congress thought otherwise. Also the Heart of Atlanta Motel did not think congress could control their business, because they did not take into consideration that more than half of its guests were from out of state. .
Even if the motel accommodated people from interstate, it still affected the commerce and people of other states. Thus congress had power over their business. The Heart of Atlanta Motel thought that this violated their 5th Amendment rights, the deprivation of property or liberty without due process of law. It did not, because it was a place of public accommodation, and the rights of many people have priority over the right of the few. This is a major theme and battle in the case, Human Rights v. Property rights. .
Chief Justice Clark (years he was justice) presiding over the court read the decision; "We, therefore, conclude that the action of the Congress in adoption of the Act as applied here to a motel which concededly serves interstate travelers is within the power granted it by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court for 140 years." Justice Clark stated that the power of Congress as it applied to the motel was in the constitution and it is Congress's duty to control local commerce as it has for one hundred forty years. The Court took note of that Title II had direct relation to interstate flow of goods and people. .
The conclusion of the Court was that places of public accommodation had no right to discriminate among guests and must comply with government regulation. It also stated that the prohibition in Title II does not violate the 5th amendment or the 13th amendment as being "involuntary servitude".