Tom C. Clark

Name: Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964) — Opinion of the Court
Author: Tom C. Clark

Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 …

Summary

“Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964) — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Tom C. Clark. It explores elements such as the Civil Rights Act, prosecutions and convictions.

Quotes from Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 … (Tom C. Clark)

Tom C. Clark, Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 …

“ In our view Congress clearly had the power to extend immunity to pending prosecutions. Some might say that to permit these convictions to stand would have no effect on interstate commerce which we have held justified the adoption of the Act. But even if this be true, the principle of abatement is so firmly imbedded in our jurisprudence as to be a necessary and proper part of every statute working a repealer of criminal legislation. Where Congress sets out to regulate a situation within its power, the Constitution affords it a wide choice of remedies. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 …

“ It was meant to obviate mere technical abatement such as that illustrated by the application of the rule in Tynen decided in 1871. There a substitution of a new statute with a greater schedule of penalties was held to abate the previous prosecution. In contrast, the Civil Rights Act works no such technical abatement. It substitutes a right for a crime. So drastic a change is well beyond the narrow language of amendment and repeal. It is clear, therefore, that if the convictions were under a federal statute they would be abated. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 …

“ This being true, the only question remaining is whether Congress exercised its power in the Act to abate the prosecutions here. If we held that it did not we would then have to pass on the constitutional question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment, without the benefit of the Civil Rights Act, operates of its own force to bar criminal trespass convictions, where, as here, they are used to enforce a pattern of racial discrimination. As we have noted, some of the Justices joining this opinion believe that the Fourteenth Amendment does so operate; others are of the contrary opinion. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 …

“ Under the Civil Rights Act, petitioners' conduct could not be the subject of trespass prosecutions, federal or state, if it had occurred after the enactment of the statute.
Title II includes several sections, some of which are relevant here, that create federal statutory rights. [3] The first is § 201 (a) declaring that " [a] ll persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation," which as we have found includes the establishments here involved. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 …

“ Nor do we believe that the provisions of the federal saving statute, 61 Stat. 635, 1 U.S.C. § 109 (1958 ed.) , would nullify abatement of a federal conviction. In Chambers, a case where the cause for punishment was removed by a repeal of the constitutional basis for the punitive statute, the Court was quite certain as to this. See 291 U.S., at 224, and n. 2, involving the identical statute. The federal saving statute was originally enacted in 1871, 16 Stat. 432. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 …

“ We hold that the convictions must be vacated and the prosecutions dismissed. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in places of public accommodation and removes peaceful attempts to be served on an equal basis from the category of punishable activities. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 …

“ No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or [p311] privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 …

“ The officers" testimony that petitioners admitted the whole affair was denied. The prosecutions in the Little Rock Municipal Court resulted in convictions of petitioners based upon § 41-1433, Ark. Stat. Ann. (1964 Repl. Vol.) , which prohibits a person from remaining on the premises of a business establishment after having been requested to leave by the owner or manager thereof. On appeal to the Pulaski Circuit Court, a trial de novo resulted in verdicts of guilty and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, 236 Ark. ”

Tom C. Clark

Summary

Quotes from Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 … (Tom C. Clark)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature