In 2006, the instigator of this Supreme Court case, Moreton Rolleston, concluded an eleven-year appeals process against a malpractice verdict that saw him representing himself while in manacles at age eighty-eight. The test of whether the regulation has a "real and substantial relation to the national interest" was developed in the opinion for this case by Justice Clark. It was decided the same year as a similar case, Katzenbach v. McClung, which examined Ollie's Barbecue in Birmingham. This decision, which pointed out the facility's proximity to Interstates 75 and 85, hinged on whether the commerce clause was sufficient grounds for Title II of the Civil Rights Act. For 10 points, name this 1964 case in which prohibitions on discrimination in places of public accomodation were upheld over 
In 2006, the instigator of this Supreme Court case, Moreton Rolleston, concluded an eleven-year appeals process against a malpractice verdict that saw him representing himself while in manacles at age eighty-eight. The test of whether the regulation has a "real and substantial relation to the national interest" was developed in the opinion for this case by Justice Clark. It was decided the same year as a similar case, Katzenbach v. McClung, which examined Ollie's Barbecue in Birmingham. This decision, which pointed out the facility's proximity to Interstates 75 and 85, hinged on whether the commerce clause was sufficient grounds for Title II of the Civil Rights Act. For 10 points, name this 1964 case in which prohibitions on discrimination in places of public accomodation were upheld over the objections of a Georgia lodging-house operator.
In 2006, the instigator of this Supreme Court case, Moreton Rolleston, concluded an eleven-year appeals process against a malpractice verdict that saw him representing himself while in manacles at age eighty-eight.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States [or United States v. Heart of Atlanta Motel]