Case: United States of America v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.

On December 18, 1964, Black residents of South Carolina filed this class action lawsuit against the corporate entity Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants refused to serve them at their South Carolinian restaurants in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Piggie Park operated six barbecue restaurants. Five of them were drive-in restaurants that served food to customers in their cars and let them drive away to eat elsewhere. The sixth restaurant, Little Joe's Sandwich Shop, offered seating capacity for sixty customers and people generally consumed the food in the restaurant. Across all six restaurants, about 20% of the food purchased was either processed or manufactured out of state.

The defendant's answer contended that the Piggie Park did not engage in enough interstate commerce to fall within the Civil Rights Acts' purview. The defendants also argued that the Civil Rights Act denied them "due process of the and/or equal protection of the law" as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and finally contended that the Act violates the defendants First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

In an opinion issued on July 28, 1966, Judge Charles Earl Simons, Jr., found largely in favor of Piggie Park. 256 F. Supp. 941. Judge Simons noted that the defendants' argument premised on the Fourteenth Amendment and Commerce Clause were precluded by Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.. He also denied the defendants' First Amendment argument, noting that "[t]he free exercise of one's beliefs . . . is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society." The only remaining question, he said, was whether the restaurants were covered by the Act. Judge Simons looked to the text of Section 2000a(b)(2) of the Act, which provided that "any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises" was covered. Judge Simons concluded that Little Joe's Sandwich Shop was covered by the Act because it offered seating and service within the restaurant. However, he found that the other five restaurants were not covered because patrons did not eat "on the premises," but rather in their cars or wherever else they drove. As such, Judge Simons enjoined the defendants from refusing to Black patrons only at Little Joe's Sandwich Shop. Judge Simons also ordered that court costs exclusive of attorneys' fees should be awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs appealed the district court decision concerning the five drive-in restaurants. On April 24, 1967, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's holding. 377 F.2d 433. In an opinion written by Judge James Craven, the Fourth Circuit held that Congress intended the Civil Rights Act to cover all restaurants, regardless whether the food was consumed on the premises or not. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the plaintiffs' attorneys were entitled to attorneys' fees. The Fourth Circuit directed the district court to award counsel fees to the extent that the defendant's arguments were advanced "for purposes of delay and not in good faith."

The defendants appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and, on October 9, 1967, the Court granted certiorari to decide whether the subjective standard for determining attorneys' fees was appropriate. 389 U.S. 815.

In a per curiam opinion issued on March 18, 1968, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit's holding. 390 U.S. 400. The Court found that private enforcement of the Civil Rights Act was intended by Congress. The Act did not provide for a damages remedy, so Congress enabled attorneys' fees "to encourage individuals injured by racial discrimination to seek judicial relief." In a footnote, the Supreme Court also reaffirmed Katzenbach v. McClung's holding that religious beliefs did not allow for racial discrimination.