View source for Civil Rights Act of 1964

{{short description|Landmark U.S. civil rights and labor law}}
{{about|the 1964 Civil Rights Act|other American laws called the Civil Rights Acts|Civil Rights Act}}
{{pp-pc}}
{{Use American English|date=June 2020}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2020}}
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| name = Civil Rights Act of 1964
| fullname = An Act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
| enacted by = 88th
| effective date = {{start date and age|1964|07|02}}
| public law url = https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg241.pdf
| cite public law = 88-352
| cite statutes at large = {{USStat|78|241}}
| acts amended = {{plainlist|
* [[Civil Rights Act of 1957]]
* [[Civil Rights Act of 1960]]
}}
| title amended = [[Title 42 of the United States Code|Title 42: Public Health and Welfare]]
| sections created = 
| sections amended = 
| leghisturl = 
| introducedin = [[United States House of Representatives|House]]
| introducedbill = H.R. 7152
| introducedby = [[Emanuel Celler]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–[[New York (state)|NY]])
| introduceddate = June 20, 1963
| committees = [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary Committee]]
| passedbody1 = [[United States House of Representatives|House]]
| passeddate1 = February 10, 1964<ref name="H.R. 7152 GovTrack">{{cite web|url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h128|title=H.R. 7152. Passage.|work=GovTrack.us|access-date=October 3, 2013|archive-date=December 6, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201206164404/https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h128|url-status=live}}</ref>
| passedvote1 = 290–130
| passedbody2 = [[United States Senate|Senate]]
| passeddate2 = June 19, 1964<ref name="H.R. 7152 Senate">{{cite web|url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409|title=HR. 7152. Passage.|work=GovTrack.us|access-date=November 30, 2013|archive-date=December 6, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201206164352/https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409|url-status=live}}</ref>
| passedvote2 = 73–27
| agreedbody3 = [[United States House of Representatives|House]]
| agreeddate3 = July 2, 1964<ref name="GovTrack">{{cite web|url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182|title=H.R. 7152. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Adoption of a Resolution (H. RES. 789) Providing for House Approval of the Bill As Amended by the Senate.|work=GovTrack.us|access-date=November 30, 2013|archive-date=September 10, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190910051149/https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182|url-status=live}}</ref>
| agreedvote3 = 289–126
| signedpresident = [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
| signeddate = July 2, 1964
| amendments = {{plainlist|
* [[Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972]]
* [[Pregnancy Discrimination Act]]
* [[Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987]]
* [[Civil Rights Act of 1991]]
* [[No Child Left Behind Act]]
* [[Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009]]
}}
| SCOTUS cases = {{plainlist|
See {{section link||United States Supreme Court cases}}
}}
| unsignedpresident = 
| vetoedpresident = 
}}
{{CRM in Washington D.C.}}

The '''Civil Rights Act of 1964''' ({{USStatute|88|352|78|241|1964|07|02}}) is a landmark [[civil rights]] and [[United States labor law|labor law]] in the United States that outlaws [[discrimination]] based on [[Race (human categorization)|race]], [[Person of color|color]], religion, sex,{{efn|Three Supreme Court rulings in June 2020 interpreted that employment discrimination on the basis of [[sexual orientation]] or [[gender identity]] is a form of discrimination on the basis of sex and is therefore also outlawed by the Civil Rights Act. See ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'', and also see below for more details.}} and national origin.<ref>[http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript "Transcript of Civil Rights Act (1964)"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418015028/https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript |date=April 18, 2021 }}. Retrieved July 28, 2012.</ref> It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, [[racial segregation]] in schools and [[public accommodations]], and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm|title=U.S. Senate: Landmark Legislation: The Civil Rights Act of 1964|website=www.senate.gov|access-date=February 27, 2021|archive-date=April 16, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190416205114/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>

Initially, powers given to enforce the act were weak, but these were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the [[United States Constitution]], principally its [[Enumerated powers (United States)|enumerated power]] to regulate interstate commerce under the [[Commerce Clause]] of [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress|Article I, Section 8]], its duty to guarantee all citizens [[Equal Protection Clause|equal protection]] of the laws under the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution|14th Amendment]], and its duty to protect voting rights under the [[Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|15th Amendment]].

The legislation was proposed by [[President of the United States|President]] [[John F. Kennedy]] in June 1963, but it was opposed by [[filibuster]] in the Senate. After [[Assassination of John F. Kennedy|Kennedy was assassinated]] on November 22, 1963, President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] pushed the bill forward. The [[United States House of Representatives]] passed the bill on February 10, 1964, and after a 72-day filibuster, it passed the [[United States Senate]] on June 19, 1964. The final vote was 290–130 in the House of Representatives and 73–27 in the Senate.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409|title=HR. 7152. Passage. Senate Vote #409 – Jun 19, 1964|website=GovTrack.us|access-date=November 30, 2013|archive-date=December 6, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201206164352/https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409|url-status=live}}</ref> After the House agreed to a subsequent Senate amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law by President Johnson at the [[White House]] on July 2, 1964.
{{TOC_limit|3}}

==Background==

===Reconstruction and New Deal era===
In the 1883 landmark ''[[Civil Rights Cases]]'', the United States Supreme Court had ruled that Congress did not have the power to prohibit discrimination in the private sector, thus stripping the [[Civil Rights Act of 1875]] of much of its ability to protect civil rights.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep109003/ | title=U.S. Reports: Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) | publisher=Library of Congress | work=U.S. Reports | date=1883 | accessdate=13 September 2024 | author=Supreme Court of the United States | quote=1. The 1st and 2d sections of the Civil Rights Act passed March 1st, 1875, are unconstitutional enactments as applied to the several States, not being authorized either by the XIllth or XIVth Amendments of the Constitution. 2. The XIVth Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, and the legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress for enforcing it is not direct legislation on the matters respecting which the States are prohibited from making or enforcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, but is corrective legislation, such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting and redressing the effect of such laws or acts. 3. The XIIIth Amendment relates only to slavery and involuntary servitude (which it abolishes) ; and although, by its reflex action, it establishes universal freedom in the United States, and Congress may probably pass laws directly enforcing its provisions; yet such legislative power extends only to the subject of slavery and its incidents; and the denial of equal accommodations in inns, public conveyances and places of public amusement (which is forbidden by the sections in question), imposes no badge of slavery or involuntary servitude upon the party, but at most, infringes rights which are protected from State aggression by the XIVth Amendment. 4. Whether the accommodations and privileges sought to be protected by the 1st and 2d sections of the Civil Rights Act, are, or are not, rights constitutionally demandable; and if they are, in what form they are to be protected, is not now decided. 5. Nor is it decided whether the law as it stands is operative in the Territories and District of Columbia : the decision only relating to its validity as applied to the States. 6. Nor is it decided whether Congress, under the commercial power, may or may not pass a law securing to all persons equal accommodations on lines of public conveyance between two or more States.}}</ref>

In the late 19th and early 20th century, the legal justification for voiding the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was part of a larger trend by the United States Supreme Court majorities to invalidate most government regulations of the private sector, except when dealing with laws designed to protect traditional public morality.

In the 1930s, during the [[New Deal]], the majority of the Supreme Court justices gradually shifted their legal theory to allow for greater government regulation of the private sector under the Commerce Clause, thus paving the way for the federal government to enact civil rights laws prohibiting both public and private sector discrimination on the basis of the commerce clause.

Influenced in part by the "[[Black Cabinet]]" advisors and the [[March on Washington Movement]], just before the U.S. entered World War II, President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] issued [[Executive Order 8802]], the first federal anti-discrimination order, and established the [[Fair Employment Practices Committee]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=FDR on racial discrimination, 1942 |url=https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/fdr-racial-discrimination-1942 |access-date=2021-04-11 |website=www.gilderlehrman.org |publisher=Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History}}</ref> Roosevelt's successor, President [[Harry Truman]], appointed the [[President's Committee on Civil Rights]], proposed the 20th century's first comprehensive Civil Rights Act, and issued Executive Order 9980 and [[Executive Order 9981]], providing for fair employment and desegregation throughout the federal government and the armed forces.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Johnson |first1=Jennifer |last2=Hussey |first2=Michael |title=Executive Orders 9980 and 9981: Ending segregation in the Armed Forces and the Federal workforce – Pieces of History |url=https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2014/05/19/executive-orders-9980-and-9981-ending-segregation-in-the-armed-forces-and-the-federal-workforce/ |access-date=2021-04-11 |website=National Archives |date=May 19, 2014 |language=en-US}}</ref>

===Civil Rights Act of 1957===
The [[Civil Rights Act of 1957]], signed by President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] on September 9, 1957, was the first federal civil rights legislation since the [[Civil Rights Act of 1875]] to become law. After the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] ruled school segregation unconstitutional in 1954 in ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'', Southern Democrats began a campaign of "[[massive resistance]]" against desegregation, and even the few moderate white leaders shifted to openly racist positions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://networks.h-net.org/node/16794/reviews/17020/gillman-klarman-jim-crow-civil-rights-supreme-court-and-struggle-racial |title=Gillman on Klarman, 'From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality' {{!}} H-Law {{!}} H-Net|website=networks.h-net.org |access-date=2020-03-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326202852/https://networks.h-net.org/node/16794/reviews/17020/gillman-klarman-jim-crow-civil-rights-supreme-court-and-struggle-racial |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2000/marchapril/feature/racism-redemption |title=Racism to Redemption |website=National Endowment for the Humanities |access-date=2020-03-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171210064143/https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2000/marchapril/feature/racism-redemption |archive-date=December 10, 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Partly in an effort to defuse calls for more far-reaching reforms, Eisenhower proposed a civil rights bill to increase the protection of voting rights for African Americans.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Pach |first1=Chester J. |last2=Richardson |first2=Elmo |title=The Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower |date=1991 |publisher=University Press of Kansas |pages=145–146 |isbn=978-0-7006-0437-1 |edition=Revised| url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/presidencyofdwig0000pach}}</ref>

Despite having a limited impact on African-American voter participation, at a time when black voter registration ranged from 0% (in 11 counties) to less than 5% (in 97 counties) despite being majority-Black counties,<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/bmpp-013-008#?image_identifier=BMPP-013-008-p0003 | title=Speeches and interviews: Federal Protection of Negro Voting Rights | publisher=Duke University School of Law | work=Law and Contemporary Problems | date=1962 | accessdate=13 September 2024 | author=Marshall, Burke | quote=Despite these long-standing guarantees, the United States Commission on Civil Rights has found that racial denials of the right to vote occur in sections of eight states. In five of those states Negroes constitute more than a quarter of the adult population, but very few of these Negroes are registered to vote. For example, in Mississippi only five per cent are registered; in Alabama only fourteen per cent are registered; in South Carolina, sixteen per cent are registered; in Georgia, twenty-six per cent are registered; and in Louisiana, twenty-nine per cent are registered. Registration among adult whites invariably exceeds fifty per cent in the same areas, and Negroes are in the majority in ninety-one per cent of the counties where Negroes are in the majority. In ninety-seven counties fewer than three per cent of the adult Negroes are on the rolls. Indeed, in thirteen counties with sizable Negro populations the Negro voter rolls are significantly below the statewide percentage of eligible Negroes registered and in fifteen Negroes approaches the white voter percentage.}}</ref> the Civil Rights Act of 1957 did establish the [[United States Commission on Civil Rights]] and the [[United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division]]. By 1960, black voting had increased by only 3%,<ref name="Miller">James A. Miller, [http://articles.boston.com/2007-11-21/news/29228077_1_civil-rights-nichols-truman-s-executive-order "An inside look at Eisenhower's civil rights record"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107182758/http://articles.boston.com/2007-11-21/news/29228077_1_civil-rights-nichols-truman-s-executive-order |date=2012-01-07 }} ''[[The Boston Globe]]'' at boston.com, 21 November 2007, accessed 28 October 2011</ref> and Congress passed the [[Civil Rights Act of 1960]], which eliminated certain loopholes left by the 1957 Act.

=== Activism ===
Global media additionally played a major influential role across both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, in allowing for the eventual passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As the negative global attention that televised instances of Civil rights resistance received such as the 1957 Little Rock Crisis, challenging the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education ruling by the United States Supreme Court ruling which outlawed public school segregation, and the attack on the 1963 Birmingham campaign protestors, put major pressure on the executive branch of government to enact sweeping legislative reform.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dudziak |first=Mary |date=June 2004 |title=Brown as a Cold War Case |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3659611 |journal=The Journal of American History |volume=91 |issue=1 |pages=32–42 |doi=10.2307/3659611 |jstor=3659611 }}</ref>

===1963 Kennedy civil rights bill===
[[File:President Kennedy addresses nation on Civil Rights, 11 June 1963.jpg|thumb|upright|U.S. President John F. Kennedy [[Report to the American People on Civil Rights|addresses the nation]] on civil rights on June 11, 1963.]]
In winning the [[1960 United States presidential election]], Kennedy took 70% of the African American vote.<ref name="election_of_1960">{{Cite web |title=Civil Rights Movement (The Election of 1960) |url=https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/civil-rights-movement |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181214123155/http://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/civil-rights-movement |archive-date=2018-12-14 |url-status=unfit |access-date=2022-07-03 |website=[[John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum]]}}</ref> But due to his narrow victory and Democrats' narrow majorities in Congress, he was wary to push hard for civil rights legislation for fear of losing southern support.<ref name="election_of_1960" /> Moreover, according to the [[Miller Center of Public Affairs|Miller Center]], he wanted to wait until his second term to send Congress a civil rights bill.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2016-12-27 |title=The Civil Rights Act of 1964  |url=https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964 |access-date=2022-07-03 |newspaper=Miller Center |language=en}}</ref> But with elevated racial tensions and a wave of African-American protests in the spring of 1963, such as the [[Birmingham campaign]], Kennedy realized he had to act on civil rights.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Kennedys and the Civil Rights Movement (U.S. National Park Service) |url=https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-kennedys-and-civil-rights.htm |access-date=2022-07-03 |website=www.nps.gov |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-03-26 |title=American Experience.Eyes on the Prize.Transcript  |website=[[PBS]] |url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/about/pt_104.html |access-date=2022-07-03 |archive-date=March 26, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170326001217/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/about/pt_104.html |url-status=bot: unknown }}</ref>

Kennedy first proposed the 1964 bill in his [[Report to the American People on Civil Rights]] on June 11, 1963.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-045-005.aspx|title=Radio and television address on civil rights|publisher=John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum|date=June 11, 1963|access-date=November 23, 2013|archive-date=September 30, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180930193600/https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-045-005.aspx|url-status=live}}</ref> He sought legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public{{snd}}hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments"{{snd}}as well as "greater protection for the right to vote". In late July, [[Walter Reuther]], president of the [[United Auto Workers]], warned that if Congress failed to pass Kennedy's civil rights bill, the country would face another civil war.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Gold|first=Susan Dudley|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HYhqH6xo8EYC&q=reuther+foresees+another+civil+war&pg=PA129|title=The Civil Rights Act of 1964|date=2011|publisher=Marshall Cavendish|isbn=978-1-60870-040-0|pages=64, 129|language=en|access-date=January 13, 2021|archive-date=January 1, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210101183856/https://books.google.com/books?id=HYhqH6xo8EYC&q=reuther+foresees+another+civil+war&pg=PA129|url-status=live}}</ref>

Emulating the [[Civil Rights Act of 1875]], which had been struck down by the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] in 1883, Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations and enable the [[United States Attorney General|U.S. Attorney General]] to join lawsuits against state governments that operated segregated school systems, among other provisions. But it did not include a number of provisions civil rights leaders deemed essential, including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, and granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits.<ref name="CivilRightsMovementArchiveFeb1964">{{cite web |title=Civil Rights Movement History 1964 Jan.–Jun.: Civil Rights Bill Passes in the House (Feb) |url=https://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis64.htm#1964cra64h |publisher=Civil Rights Movement Archive |access-date=May 31, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521120444/https://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis64.htm#1964cra64h |archive-date=May 21, 2020}}</ref>

==Legislative history==

===House of Representatives===

On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later, [[Senate Minority Leader]] [[Everett Dirksen]] and [[Senate Majority Leader]] [[Mike Mansfield]] both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Representatives drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative".<ref>[[Robert D. Loevy|Loevy, Robert D.]] (1997), ''The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Law that Ended Racial Segregation'', State University of New York Press, p. 171. {{ISBN|0-7914-3362-5}}</ref><ref>[[Terry Golway|Golway, Terry]] and Krantz, Les (2010), ''JFK: Day by Day'', Running Press, p. 284. {{ISBN|978-0-7624-3742-9}}</ref> The president's bill went first to the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], where it was referred to the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|Judiciary Committee]], chaired by [[New York (state)|New York]] Democrat [[Emanuel Celler]]. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the [[Civil Rights Act of 1957|1957 Act]] and [[Civil Rights Act of 1960|1960 Act]]. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.<ref name="CivilRightsMovementArchiveFeb1964" />

===Lobbying efforts===
[[File:Civil rights leaders meet with President John F. Kennedy2.jpg|thumb|Following the [[March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom|March on Washington]] on August 28, 1963, civil rights leaders met with President Kennedy and Vice President Johnson to discuss civil rights legislation.]]Lobbying support for the Civil Rights Act was coordinated by the [[Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights|Leadership Conference on Civil Rights]], a coalition of 70 liberal and labor organizations. The principal lobbyists for the Leadership Conference were civil rights lawyer [[Joseph L. Rauh Jr.]] and [[Clarence Mitchell Jr.]] of the NAACP.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://civilrights.org/history-leadership-conference-civil-human-rights-leadership-conference-education-fund/|title=History of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights & The Leadership Conference Education Fund – The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights|access-date=June 30, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170629031854/http://civilrights.org/history-leadership-conference-civil-human-rights-leadership-conference-education-fund/|archive-date=June 29, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>

After the [[March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom]], on August 28, 1963, the organizers visited Kennedy to discuss the civil rights bill.<ref name="auto">{{cite web|title=Civil Rights Era (1950–1963) – The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Long Struggle for Freedom|website=Library of Congress|url=https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-era.html|last1=Wilkins|first1=Roy|last2=Mitchell|first2=Clarence|date=October 10, 2014|language=en|access-date=May 14, 2020|last3=King|first3=Martin Luther Jr|last4=Lewis|first4=John|last5=Humphrey|first5=Hubert|last6=Parks|first6=Gordon|last7=Ellison|first7=Ralph|last8=Rustin|first8=Bayard|last9=Warren|first9=Earl|archive-date=January 9, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200109202657/https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-era.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Roy Wilkins]], [[A. Philip Randolph]], and Walter Reuther attempted to persuade him to support a provision establishing a Fair Employment Practices Commission that would ban discriminatory practices by all federal agencies, unions, and private companies.<ref name="auto"/>

Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage.<ref>Reeves, Richard (1993), ''President Kennedy: Profile of Power'', pp. 628–631</ref> The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963 and referred to the [[United States House Committee on Rules|Rules Committee]], whose chairman, [[Howard W. Smith]], a Democrat and staunch segregationist from [[Virginia]], indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

===Johnson's appeal to Congress===
The [[assassination of John F. Kennedy|assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy]] on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, [[Lyndon B. Johnson]], made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the [[bully pulpit]] he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a [[Joint session of the United States Congress|joint session of Congress]] on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1963/Transition-to-Johnson/12295509434394-3/|title=1963 Year In Review: Transition to Johnson|work=[[United Press International|UPI]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200429132839/https://www.upi.com/Archives/Audio/Events-of-1963/Transition-to-Johnson|archive-date=April 29, 2020}}</ref>

Judiciary Committee chairman Celler filed a [[discharge petition|petition to discharge]] the bill from the Rules Committee;<ref name="CivilRightsMovementArchiveFeb1964" /> it required the support of a majority of House members to move the bill to the floor. Initially, Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, with many Representatives who supported the civil rights bill itself remaining cautious about violating normal House procedure with the rare use of a discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.

After the return of Congress from its winter recess, however, it was apparent that public opinion in the North favored the bill and that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To avert the humiliation of a successful discharge petition, Chairman Smith relented and allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee.<ref name="CivilRightsMovementArchiveFeb1964" />

===Passage in the Senate===
[[File:MLK and Malcolm X USNWR cropped.jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|Activists [[Martin Luther King Jr.]] and [[Malcolm X]] at the [[United States Capitol]] on March 26, 1964, listening to the Senate debate on the bill. The two met for only one minute.<ref>{{cite book |last=Cone |first=James H. |author-link=James Hal Cone |title=Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare |year=1991 |isbn=0-88344-721-5 |page=[https://archive.org/details/martinmalcolmame00jame/page/2 2] |publisher=Orbis Books |url=https://archive.org/details/martinmalcolmame00jame/page/2 }}</ref>]]
[[File:Lyndon Johnson signing Civil Rights Act, 2 July, 1964.jpg|thumb|right|U.S. President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the guests behind him is [[Martin Luther King Jr.]]]] Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that it would be quickly considered by the [[United States Senate|Senate]].
Normally, the bill would have been referred to the [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary Committee]], which was chaired by [[James O. Eastland]], a [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrat]] from [[Mississippi]], whose firm opposition made it seem impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. [[Senate Majority Leader]] [[Mike Mansfield]] took a novel approach to prevent the Judiciary Committee from keeping the bill in limbo: initially waiving a second reading immediately after the first reading, which would have sent it to the Judiciary Committee, he took the unprecedented step of giving the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, thereby bypassing the Judiciary Committee, and sending it to the Senate floor for immediate debate.

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "[[Solid South|Southern Bloc]]" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and lone Republican [[John Tower]] of Texas, led by [[Richard Russell Jr.|Richard Russell]] (D-GA), launched a [[filibuster]] to prevent its passage.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dirksencenter.org/research-collections/everett-m-dirksen/dirksen-record/civil-rights-june-10-1964 |title=A Case History: The 1964 Civil Rights Act |publisher=The Dirksen Congressional Center |access-date=July 21, 2016 |archive-date=July 29, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200729211300/https://dirksencenter.org/research-collections/everett-m-dirksen/dirksen-record/civil-rights-june-10-1964 |url-status=live }}</ref> Russell proclaimed, "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring about [[social equality]] and [[miscegenation|intermingling and amalgamation of the races]] in our [Southern] states."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Napolitano |first1=Andrew P. |author1-link=Andrew Napolitano |title=Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America |date=2009 |publisher=Thomas Nelson |page=188 |isbn=978-1595552655 |url=https://archive.org/details/dredscottsreveng0000napo/page/188/mode/1up?q=&quot;we+will+resist&quot; |access-date=July 7, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-civil-rights-quotes-20140629-story.html |title=The Civil Rights Act: What JFK, LBJ, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X had to say |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |last=Remnick |first=Noah |date=June 28, 2014 |access-date=July 7, 2022 |archive-date=February 24, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160224154315/http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-civil-rights-quotes-20140629-story,amp.html |url-status=unfit }}</ref>

Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator [[Strom Thurmond]], who was still a Democrat at the time: "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals [''sic''], which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the [[Reconstruction era of the United States|Reconstruction]] proposals and actions of the [[Radical Republicans|radical Republican]] Congress."<ref>[http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1963/Civil-Rights-Bill/12295509434394-8/ 1963 Year In Review – Part 1 – Civil Rights Bill] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100502195055/http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1963/Civil-Rights-Bill/12295509434394-8/ |date=May 2, 2010 }} United Press International, 1963</ref>
[[File:Feb. 10, 1964 Vote of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (House).svg|thumb|The breakdown by party of the first floor vote in the US House of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. February 10, 1964.Light colors represents members who voted nay, dark represents members who voted aye, grey represents members who voted present or did not vote.]]
After the filibuster had gone on for 54 days, Senators Mansfield, [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Everett Dirksen]], and [[Thomas Kuchel]] introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would overcome it by combining a sufficient number of Republicans as well as core liberal Democrats. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version as to the government's power in regulating the conduct of private business, but not weak enough to make the House reconsider it.<ref>[http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis64.htm#1964cra64s Civil Rights Act – Battle in the Senate] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121225052448/http://www.crmvet.org/tim/tim64c.htm#1964cra64s |date=December 25, 2012 }} ~ Civil Rights Movement Archive</ref>
[[File:Vote of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Senate).svg|thumb|The breakdown by party of the floor vote in the Senate of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. June 19, 1964. Light colors means a nay vote, dark means aye]]
Senator [[Robert Byrd]] ended his filibuster in opposition to the bill on the morning of June 10, 1964, after 14 hours and 13 minutes. Up to then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. The day before, Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded that he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never before in its entire history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to defeat a filibuster on a civil rights bill, and only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to [[cloture]] for any measure.<ref>[https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm Civil Rights Filibuster Ended] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091202150111/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm |date=December 2, 2009 }} – United States Senate</ref>  

The most dramatic moment during the cloture vote came when Senator [[Clair Engle]] (D-CA) was wheeled into the chamber. Suffering from terminal [[brain cancer]], unable to speak, he pointed to his left eye, signifying his affirmative "[[Voice vote#United States|Aye]]" vote when his name was called.<ref name="engle">{{cite web | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1964/06/11/archives/packed-senate-galleries-tense-10minute-vote-makes-history.html | title=Packed Senate Galleries Tense; 10-Minute Vote Makes History | work=[[New York Times]] | date=11 June 1964 | accessdate=13 September 2024 | author=Hunter, Marjorie | quote=Seconds before his name was called, Senator Clair Engle, of California, was pushed into the chamber in a wheel chair. He was smiling slightly. 'Mr. Engle', the clerk called.  There was a long silence. Senator Engle, recuperating from two brain operations, tried to speak. He could not.  Finally, he raised his left arm, as though trying to point toward his eyes. He nodded his head, signaling that he was voting 'aye'.  He was wheeled out of the chamber minutes later and taken by ambulance back to his home here.  It was Senator Engle's first appearance on the Senate floor since April 13.}}</ref> He died seven weeks later.      

==Legislative Breakdown==
[[File:July 2, 1964 Vote of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (House).svg|thumb|The breakdown by party of the second floor vote in the House of Representatives of the legislation. July 2, 1964. Light colors represents members who voted nay, dark represents members who voted aye, and grey represents members who voted present or did not vote.]]
H.R. 1752 was brought to a floor vote in the chambers of the House of Representatives on February 10, 1964. The Republican Party voted 138 in favor, 34 against. The Democratic Party voted 152 in favor, 96 against. 5 members voted present, and 6 members did not vote. <ref>{{Cite web |last=GOVTRACK.US |title=Roll Call Votes - House Vote #128 in 1964 (88th Congress) |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h128#google_vignette |website=GOVTRACK.US}}</ref> 

It was then brought to the floor of the Senate on June 19, 1964 for a vote. The Republican Party voted 27 in favor, 6 against. The Democratic Party voted 46 in favor, 21 against. <ref>{{Cite web |last=GOVTRACK.US |title=Roll Call Votes - Senate Vote #409 in 1964 (88th Congress) |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409 |website=GOVTRACK.US}}</ref>

With amendments having been made to the bill, it was sent back to the House for final passage. The House took H.R. 7152 on the floor for vote on July 2, 1964. Republicans voted 136 in favor, 35 against, 2 present, 5 not voting. Democrats voted 153 in favor, 91 against, 2 present, 12 not voting. <ref>{{Cite web |last=GOVTRACKER.US |title=Roll Call Votes - House Vote #182 in 1964 (88th Congress) |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182 |website=GOVTRACKER.US}}</ref>

Upon being passed by the House, it was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on the same day.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Robert |last1=Dallek |author-link=Robert Dallek |year=2004 |title=Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President |page=169}}</ref>

===Vote totals===

{| class="floatright" style="text-align:center"
|- style="vertical-align:bottom;"
!
! {{Party shading/Democratic}} | [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]]
! {{Party shading/Republican}} | [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]]
!
|
|-
! colspan=5 style="text-align:center;" |Result: {{green|Passed}}
|-
| colspan=5 style="background:#f9f7f0" |
{{hidden begin|toggle=center|title=Roll call vote<ref>{{cite web |title=HR. 7152. PASSAGE. |url= https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409 |website=Govtrack |access-date=27 April 2024}}</ref>|ta1=center|ta2=center}}
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin:auto;"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 170px;"| Senator !! Party !! scope="col" style="width: 115px;"| State !! text-align="center"| Vote
|-
| {{sortname|George|Aiken}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Vermont]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Gordon|Allott}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Colorado]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Clinton|Anderson|dab=New Mexico politician}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[New Mexico]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Bob|Bartlett}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Alaska]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Birch|Bayh}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Indiana]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|J. Glenn|Beall}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Maryland]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Wallace F.|Bennett}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Utah]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Alan|Bible}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Nevada]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|J. Caleb|Boggs}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Delaware]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Daniel|Brewster}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Maryland]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Quentin|Burdick}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[North Dakota]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Harry F.|Byrd}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Virginia]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Robert|Byrd}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[West Virginia]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Howard|Cannon}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Nevada]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Frank|Carlson}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Kansas]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Clifford P.|Case}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[New Jersey]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Frank|Church}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Idaho]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Joseph S.|Clark Jr.}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Pennsylvania]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|John Sherman|Cooper}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Kentucky]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Norris|Cotton}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[New Hampshire]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Carl|Curtis}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Nebraska]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Everett|Dirksen}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Illinois]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Thomas J.|Dodd}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Connecticut]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Peter H.|Dominick}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Colorado]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Paul|Douglas|Paul Douglas (Illinois politician)}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Illinois]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|James|Eastland}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Mississippi]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|J. Howard|Edmondson}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Oklahoma]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Allen J.|Ellender}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Louisiana]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Clair|Engle}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[California]]|| style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Sam|Ervin}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[North Carolina]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Hiram|Fong}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Hawaii]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|J. William|Fulbright}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Arkansas]]|| style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Barry|Goldwater}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Arizona]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Albert|Gore Sr.}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Tennessee]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Ernest|Gruening}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Alaska]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Philip|Hart}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Michigan]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Vance|Hartke}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Indiana]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Carl|Hayden}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Arizona]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Bourke B.|Hickenlooper}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Iowa]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|J. Lister|Hill}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Alabama]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Spessard|Holland}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Florida]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Roman|Hruska}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Nebraska]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Hubert|Humphrey}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Minnesota]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Daniel|Inouye}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Hawaii]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Henry M.|Jackson}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Washington (state)|Washington]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Jacob|Javits}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[New York (state)|New York]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Olin D.|Johnston}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[South Carolina]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Leonard B.|Jordan}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Idaho]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|B. Everett|Jordan}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[North Carolina]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Kenneth|Keating}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[New York (state)|New York]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Ted|Kennedy}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Massachusetts]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Thomas|Kuchel}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[California]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Frank|Lausche}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Ohio]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Russell B.|Long}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Louisiana]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Edward V.|Long}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Missouri]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Warren|Magnuson}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Washington (state)|Washington]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Mike|Mansfield}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Montana]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Eugene|McCarthy}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Minnesota]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|John L.|McClellan}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Arkansas]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Gale W.|McGee}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Wyoming]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|George|McGovern}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[South Dakota]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Thomas J.|McIntyre}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[New Hampshire]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Patrick V.|McNamara}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Michigan]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Edwin L.|Mechem}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[New Mexico]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Lee|Metcalf}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Montana]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Jack|Miller|Jack Miller (politician)}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Iowa]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Mike|Monroney}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Oklahoma]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Wayne|Morse}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Oregon]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Thruston Ballard|Morton}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Kentucky]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Frank|Moss}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Utah]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Karl|Mundt}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[South Dakota]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Edmund|Muskie}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Maine]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Gaylord|Nelson}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Wisconsin]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Maurine|Neuberger}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Oregon]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|John|Pastore}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Rhode Island]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|James B.|Pearson}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Kansas]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Claiborne|Pell}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Rhode Island]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Winston L.|Prouty}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Vermont]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|William|Proxmire}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Wisconsin]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Jennings|Randolph}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[West Virginia]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Abraham|Ribicoff}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Connecticut]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|A. Willis|Robertson}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Virginia]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Richard|Russell Jr.}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Leverett|Saltonstall}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Massachusetts]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Hugh|Scott}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Pennsylvania]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Milward|Simpson}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Wyoming]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|George|Smathers}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Florida]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Margaret Chase|Smith}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Maine]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|John|Sparkman}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Alabama]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|John C.|Stennis}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Mississippi]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Stuart|Symington}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Missouri]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Herman|Talmadge}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Strom|Thurmond}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[South Carolina]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|John|Tower}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Texas]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|Herbert S.|Walters}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Tennessee]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88; | Nay
|-
| {{sortname|John J.|Williams|John J. Williams (politician)}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Delaware]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Harrison A.|Williams}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[New Jersey]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Ralph|Yarborough}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Texas]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Milton|Young}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[North Dakota]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|-
| {{sortname|Stephen M.|Young}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Ohio]] || style="background-color:#ffffff; | Yea
|}
{{hidden end}}
|}
Totals are in ''Yea''–''Nay'' format:
* Original House version: 290–130 (69–31%)<ref name="H.R. 7152 GovTrack" />
* Cloture in the Senate: 71–29
* Senate version: 73–27<ref name="H.R. 7152 Senate" />
* Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%)<ref name="GovTrack" />

====By party====
Original House version:<ref name="H.R. 7152 GovTrack" />
* Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
* Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:<ref>{{cite conference
 | first1 = Gyung-Ho
 | last1 = Jeong
 |first2=Gary J. |last2=Miller |first3=Itai |last3=Sened
 | date = March 14, 2009
| title = Closing The Deal: Negotiating Civil Rights Legislation
 | conference = 67th Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association
 | conference-url = http://www.mpsanet.org/
 | page = 29
 | url = https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231788483
 | access-date = July 29, 2016
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160729222357/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231788483_Closing_the_Deal_Negotiating_Civil_Rights_Legislation
 | archive-date = July 29, 2016
| url-status = live
}}</ref>
* Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
* Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

Senate version:<ref name="H.R. 7152 Senate" />
* Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
* Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

Senate version, voted on by the House:<ref name="GovTrack" />
* Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
* Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

====By region====
[[File:Senate vote on final passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (HR 7152).png|thumb|300px|Senate vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964]]
Note that "Southern", as used here, only refers to members of Congress from the 11 states that had made up the [[Confederate States of America]] in the [[American Civil War]]. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of their geographic location including Southern states like Kentucky.<ref name="Enten">{{cite news|title=Were Republicans Really..?|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=September 16, 2016|date=August 28, 2013|archive-date=December 23, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201223195426/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights|url-status=live}}</ref>

House of Representatives:<ref name="GovTrack" />
* Northern: 281–32 (90–10%)
* Southern: 8–94 (8–92%)

Senate:<ref name="H.R. 7152 Senate" />
* Northern: 72–6 (92–8%)
* Southern: 1–21 (5–95%) – [[Ralph Yarborough]] of [[Texas]] was the only Southerner to vote in favor in the Senate

====By party and region====

{{Listen
|filename=Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Bill (July 2, 1964) Lyndon Baines Johnson.theora.ogv
|title="Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964"
|description=Public statement by [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] of July 2, 1964, about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
|filename2=LBJ Civil Rights signing 1964 edited.ogg
|title2="Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964"
|description2=audio only
|format=[[Ogg]]
}}

House of Representatives:<ref name="GovTrack" />
* Southern Democrats: 8–83 (9–91%) – four Representatives from [[Texas]] ([[Jack Brooks (American politician)|Jack Brooks]], [[Albert Thomas (American politician)|Albert Thomas]], [[J. J. Pickle]], and [[Henry B. Gonzalez|Henry González]]), two from [[Tennessee]] ([[Richard Fulton]] and [[Ross Bass]]), [[Claude Pepper]] of [[Florida]] and [[Charles L. Weltner]] of [[Georgia (U.S. State)|Georgia]] voted in favor
* Southern Republicans: 0–11 (0–100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145–8 (95–5%)
* Northern Republicans: 136–24 (85–15%)
Note that four Representatives voted ''Present'' while 13 did not vote.

Senate:<ref name="H.R. 7152 Senate" />
* Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) – only [[Ralph Yarborough]] of [[Texas]] voted in favor
* Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) – [[John Tower]] of [[Texas]], the only Southern Republican at the time, voted against
* Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) – only [[Robert Byrd]] of [[West Virginia]] voted against
* Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) – [[Norris Cotton]] ([[New Hampshire|NH]]), [[Barry Goldwater]] ([[Arizona|AZ]]), [[Bourke Hickenlooper|Bourke B. Hickenlooper]] ([[Iowa|IA]]), [[Edwin L. Mechem]] ([[New Mexico|NM]]), and [[Milward Simpson]] ([[Wyoming|WY]]) voted against

===Aspects===

====Women's rights====
[[File:Civil Rights Act of 1964 - amendment adding "sex" -- high-resolution.jpg|thumb|upright=1.4|Engrossing copy of H.R. 7152, which added sex to the categories of persons against whom the bill prohibited discrimination, as passed by the House of Representatives<ref>{{cite book|url=https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6037151|title=Excerpt of the Engrossing Copy of H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Showing Amendments|last=U.S. House of Representatives. Office of the Clerk of the House|date=September 25, 1964|via=US National Archives Research Catalog|series=Series: General Records, 1789–2015|access-date=September 25, 2017|archive-date=September 25, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170925231053/https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6037151|url-status=live}}</ref>]]

One year earlier, the same Congress had passed the [[Equal Pay Act of 1963]], which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. The prohibition on sex discrimination was added to the Civil Rights Act by [[Howard W. Smith]], a powerful Virginia Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and strongly opposed the legislation. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate whether Smith [[Wrecking amendment|cynically attempted to defeat the bill]] because he opposed civil rights for Black people and women or attempted to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women.<ref name="Freeman">[[Jo Freeman|Freeman, Jo.]] "How 'Sex' Got Into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as a Maker of Public Policy," ''Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice'', Vol. 9, No. 2, March 1991, pp. 163–184. [http://www.jofreeman.com/lawandpolicy/titlevii.htm online version] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060423141747/http://www.jofreeman.com/lawandpolicy/titlevii.htm |date=April 23, 2006 }}</ref><ref>[[Rosalind Rosenberg|Rosenberg, Rosalind]] (2008), ''Divided Lives: American Women in the Twentieth Century'', pp. 187–188</ref><ref>Gittinger, Ted and Fisher, Allen, [https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act-2.html LBJ Champions the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Part 2] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170831112137/https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act-2.html |date=August 31, 2017 }}, Prologue Magazine, The National Archives, Summer 2004, Vol. 36, No. 2 ("Certainly Smith hoped that such a divisive issue would torpedo the civil rights bill, if not in the House, then in the Senate.")</ref><ref name="'70s 245">{{cite book|title= How We Got Here: The '70s|last= Frum|first= David|author-link= David Frum|year= 2000|isbn= 0-465-04195-7|pages= [https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum/page/245 245–246, 249]|publisher= Basic Books|url= https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum/page/245}}</ref> Smith expected that Republicans, who had included [[women's rights|equal rights for women]] in their party's platform since 1944,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25835|title=The American Presidency Project|access-date=May 29, 2016|archive-date=June 24, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160624233257/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25835|url-status=live}}</ref> would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because labor unions opposed the clause. Representative [[Carl Elliott]] of Alabama later said, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights", as "he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights",<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Dierenfield | first1 = Bruce J | year = 1981 | title = Conservative Outrage: the Defeat in 1966 of Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia | journal = Virginia Magazine of History and Biography | volume = 89 | issue = 2| page = 194 }}</ref> and according to the ''[[Congressional Record]]'', laughter greeted Smith when he introduced the amendment.<ref name="Gold">Gold, Michael Evan. ''A Tale of Two Amendments: The Reasons Congress Added Sex to Title VII and Their Implication for the Issue of Comparable Worth.'' Faculty Publications –  Collective Bargaining, Labor Law, and Labor History. Cornell, 1981 [https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=cbpubs] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060921222720/http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=cbpubs|date=September 21, 2006}}</ref>

Smith asserted that he was not joking and sincerely supported the amendment. Along with Representative [[Martha Griffiths]],<ref>[[Lynne Olson|Olson, Lynne]] (2001), ''Freedom's Daughters: The Unsung Heroines of the Civil Rights Movement'', p. 360</ref> he was the amendment's chief spokesperson.<ref name="Gold" /> For 20 years, Smith had sponsored the [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (with no linkage to racial issues) in the House because he believed in it. For decades he had been close to the [[National Woman's Party]] and its leader [[Alice Paul]], who had been a leading figure in winning the right to vote for women in 1920, co-authored the first Equal Rights Amendment, and had been a chief supporter of equal rights proposals since then. She and other feminists had worked with Smith since 1945 to find a way to include sex as a protected civil rights category, and felt now was the moment.<ref>[[Rosalind Rosenberg|Rosenberg, Rosalind]] (2008), ''Divided Lives: American Women in the Twentieth Century'', p. 187 notes that Smith had been working for years with two Virginia feminists on the issue.</ref> Griffiths argued that the new law would protect black women but not white women, and that that was unfair to white women. Black feminist lawyer [[Pauli Murray]] wrote a supportive memorandum at the behest of the [[Business and Professional Women's Foundation|National Federation of Business and Professional Women]].<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.jofreeman.com/lawandpolicy/titlevii.htm |first1=Jo |last1=Freeman |author1-link=Jo Freeman |title=How 'Sex' Got into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as a Maker of Public Policy |journal=Law and Inequality |volume=9 |issue=2 |date=March 1991 |pages=163–184 |access-date=April 23, 2006 |archive-date=April 23, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060423141747/http://www.jofreeman.com/lawandpolicy/titlevii.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Griffiths also argued that the laws "protecting" women from unpleasant jobs were actually designed to enable men to monopolize those jobs, and that that was unfair to women who were not allowed to try out for those jobs.<ref>[[Cynthia Harrison|Harrison, Cynthia]] (1989), ''On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues, 1945–1968'', p. 179</ref> The amendment passed with the votes of Republicans and Southern Democrats. The final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats. Thus, as Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote in ''[[Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson]]'', "The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives [...] the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on 'sex.{{'"}}<ref>{{ussc |name=Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson |volume=477 |page=57 |pin= |year=1986}}.</ref>

====Desegregation====
One of the bill's opponents' most damaging arguments was that once passed, the bill would require [[desegregation busing in the United States|forced busing]] to achieve certain [[racial quotas]] in schools.<ref name="'70s 251">{{cite book |title= How We Got Here: The '70s|last= Frum|first= David|author-link= David Frum|year= 2000|pages= [https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum/page/251 251–252]|publisher= Basic Books|isbn= 9780465041954|url=https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum|url-access= registration}}</ref> The bill's proponents, such as [[Emanuel Celler]] and [[Jacob Javits]], said it would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing.<ref name="'70s 251" /> Humphrey said, "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race."<ref name="'70s 251" /> Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," but two years later the [[Department of Health, Education and Welfare]] said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.<ref name="'70s 251" />

==Aftermath==

=== Political repercussions ===
{{see also|Political realignment}}
[[File:LBJ Civil Rights Act crowd.jpg|thumb|upright=1.4|U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson speaks to a television camera at the signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.]]

The bill divided both major American political parties and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of the support for each. President Kennedy realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General [[Robert F. Kennedy]] and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide [[Ted Sorensen]] that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."<ref>[[Nick Kotz|Kotz, Nick]] (2005), ''Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws that Changed America'', p. 61.</ref> Senator [[Richard Russell Jr.|Richard Russell, Jr.]] later warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election".<ref>Branch, Taylor (1998), ''Pillar of Fire'', p. 187.</ref> Johnson, however, went on to win the [[1964 United States presidential election|1964 election]] by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican Party by the 1990s.<ref>{{cite web |last=Brownstein |first=Ronald |author-link=Ron Brownstein |title=For GOP, A Southern Exposure |date=May 23, 2009 |url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20090523_2195.php |work=[[National Journal]] |access-date=July 7, 2010 |archive-date=May 24, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090524221547/http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20090523_2195.php |url-status=live }}</ref>

Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation,<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.thenation.com/article/conservatism-phoenix#axzz2crNUSaxp|title=Conservatism as Phoenix|first=Robert|last=Sherrill|author-link=Robert Sherrill|date=May 25, 2001|journal=The Nation|access-date=August 24, 2013|archive-date=October 20, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121020193358/http://www.thenation.com/article/conservatism-phoenix#axzz2crNUSaxp|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] 1964 presidential candidate, Senator [[Barry Goldwater]] of Arizona, voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the [[Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|24th Amendment]] outlawing the [[Poll tax (United States)|poll tax]]. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and [[states' rights]]. Democrats and Republicans from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 60 working day filibuster, including Senators [[Albert Gore Sr.|Albert Gore, Sr.]] (D-TN) and [[J. William Fulbright]] (D-AR), as well as Senator [[Robert Byrd]] (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/civil-rights-filibuster-ended.htm |title=U.S. Senate: Civil Rights Filibuster Ended |publisher=Senate.gov |date= |accessdate=2022-02-14 |archive-date=January 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220114221341/https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/civil-rights-filibuster-ended.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Continued resistance ===
There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question [...] is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers".<ref name="jstor.org">{{Cite journal|title=Travelers, Strangers, and Jim Crow: Law, Public Accommodations, and Civil Rights in America|first=A.K.|last=Sandoval-Strausz|journal=Law and History Review|volume=23|issue=1|pages=53–94|date=Spring 2005|doi=10.1017/s0738248000000055|jstor=30042844|doi-access=free}}</ref> Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] and also violated the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth]] and [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Thirteenth]] Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process".<ref name="jstor.org" /> In ''[[Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States|Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States]]'' (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims.

Resistance to the public accommodation clause continued for years on the ground, especially in the South.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/05/1964-civil-rights-battles/100744/|title=1964: Civil Rights Battles|first=Alan|last=Taylor|work=The Atlantic|access-date=March 6, 2017|archive-date=March 9, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309121206/https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/05/1964-civil-rights-battles/100744/|url-status=live}}</ref> When local college students in Orangeburg, South Carolina, attempted to desegregate a bowling alley in 1968, they were violently attacked, leading to rioting and what became known as the "[[Orangeburg massacre]]."<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AJbiA_sBjzYC&q=cambridge|title=Race, Riots, and Roller Coasters: The Struggle over Segregated Recreation in America|first=Victoria W.|last=Wolcott|date=August 16, 2012|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|via=Google Books|isbn=978-0812207590|access-date=November 9, 2020|archive-date=April 18, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418012133/https://books.google.com/books?id=AJbiA_sBjzYC&q=cambridge|url-status=live}}</ref> Resistance by school boards continued into the next decade, with the most significant declines in black-white school segregation only occurring at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s in the aftermath of the ''[[Green v. County School Board of New Kent County]]'' (1968) court decision.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/60-years-after-brown-trends-and-consequences-school-segregation|title=60 Years After Brown: Trends and Consequences of School Segregation|first1=Sean F.|last1=Reardon|author1-link=Sean Reardon|first2=Ann|last2=Owens|date=August 1, 2014|journal=Annual Review of Sociology|volume=40|issue=40|page=199|doi=10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043152|via=cepa.stanford.edu|access-date=June 17, 2020|archive-date=June 18, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200618165916/https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/60-years-after-brown-trends-and-consequences-school-segregation|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

=== Later impact on LGBT rights ===
[[File:President Joe Biden speaks at an event celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act on 29 July 2024, at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and Museum in Austin, Texas (cropped).jpg|thumb|President [[Joe Biden]] speaks at an event celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act on 29 July 2024, at the [[Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum|Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and Museum]] in Austin, Texas. ]]
In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three cases (''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'', ''[[Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda]]'', and ''[[R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]]'') that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which barred employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, precluded employers from discriminating on the basis of [[sexual orientation]] or [[gender identity]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jun/15/justices-rule-lgbt-people-protected-job-discrimina/|title=Justices rule LGBT people protected from job discrimination|date=June 15, 2020|website=Arkansas Online|access-date=June 15, 2020|archive-date=June 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615161641/https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jun/15/justices-rule-lgbt-people-protected-job-discrimina/|url-status=live}}</ref> Afterward, ''[[USA Today]]'' stated that in addition to LGBTQ employment discrimination, "[t]he court's ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on federal civil rights laws barring sex discrimination in education, health care, housing and financial credit."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wolf |first1=Richard |title=Supreme Court grants federal job protections to gay, lesbian, transgender workers |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/15/supreme-court-denies-job-protection-lgbt-workers/4456749002/ |access-date=October 8, 2020 |newspaper=USA Today |date=June 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201007113245/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/15/supreme-court-denies-job-protection-lgbt-workers/4456749002/ |archive-date=October 7, 2020}}</ref>

==Titles==
{{Wikisource}}

===Title I{{snd}}voting rights===
[[File:Civilrightsact1964.jpg|thumb|right|First page of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]]

'''Title I''' barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. This title did not eliminate [[literacy test]]s, which acted as one barrier for black voters, other racial minorities, and poor whites in the South or address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification". It accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but would have to meet standards beyond citizenship.<ref name="20201215CivilRightsMovementHistory1964July-Dec">{{cite web |title=Civil Rights Movement History 1964 July–Dec. Here: Sections "Civil Rights Act of 1964 Signed into Law (July)" and "Effects of the Civil Rights Act" |url=https://www.crmvet.org/tim/tim64c.htm |publisher=Civil Rights Movement Archive – SNCC, SCLC, CORE, NAACP |access-date=December 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20201215092815/https://www.crmvet.org/tim/tim64c.htm |archive-date=December 15, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Civil Rights Movement History 1964 Jan–June. Here: Sections "Civil Rights Bill Passes in the House (Feb)" and "Civil Rights Bill – Battle in the Senate (March–June)" |url=https://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis64.htm |publisher=Civil Rights Movement Archive – SNCC, SCLC, CORE, NAACP |access-date=December 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20201215093343/https://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis64.htm |archive-date=December 15, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm |title=Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 |work=CongressLink |publisher=The Dirksen Congressional Center |access-date=March 14, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141206191323/http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm |archive-date=December 6, 2014 }}</ref> The [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]] directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship, eliminating literacy tests.<ref name="20201215CivilRightsMovementHistory1964July-Dec" />

===Title II{{snd}}public accommodations===
'''Title II''' outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; Title II defined "public accommodations" as establishments that serve the public. It exempted private clubs, without defining the term "private", or other establishments not open to the public.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/civilrightsact1964.html | title=Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II | publisher=[[Wake Forest University]] | access-date=June 15, 2013 | archive-date=April 10, 2015 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150410074228/http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/civilrightsact1964.html | url-status=live }}</ref>

===Title III{{snd}}desegregation of public facilities===
'''Title III''' prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.

===Title IV{{snd}}desegregation of public education===
'''Title IV''' enforced the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

===Title V{{snd}}Commission on Civil Rights===
'''Title V''' expanded the [[United States Commission on Civil Rights|Civil Rights Commission]] established by the earlier [[Civil Rights Act of 1957]] with additional powers, rules, and procedures.

===Title VI{{snd}}nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs===
'''Title VI''' prevents discrimination by programs and activities that receive federal funds. If a recipient of federal funds is found in violation of Title VI, that recipient may lose its federal funding.

'''General'''

This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs.
Section 601{{spaced ndash}}This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.

Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act ({{usc|5|1009}}). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

'''2019 Executive Order'''

The December 11, 2019, [[executive order]] on combating antisemitism states: "While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination against [[Jews]] may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual's race, color, or national origin. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in [[anti-Semitism|antisemitism]] as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI." The order specifies that agencies responsible for Title VI enforcement shall "consider" the (non-legally binding) [[Working Definition of Antisemitism|working definition of antisemitism]] adopted by the [[International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance]] (IHRA) on May 26, 2016, as well as the IHRA list of [[Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism]], "to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-anti-semitism/|via=[[NARA|National Archives]]|work=[[whitehouse.gov]]|title=Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism|access-date=March 1, 2021|archive-date=January 25, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210125125632/https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-anti-semitism/|url-status=live}}</ref>

'''2025 Executive Order'''

In April 2025, President Trump issued [[Executive Order 14281]] which orders, "the Attorney General shall initiate appropriate action to repeal or amend the implementing regulations for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for all agencies to the extent they contemplate [[Disparate impact|disparate-impact]] liability".<ref name=":2">Executive Order 14281 – Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy:
*{{Cite web |date=April 23, 2025 |title=Executive Order 14281 |url=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14281-restoring-equality-opportunity-and-meritocracy |website=[[The American Presidency Project]]}}
*{{Federal Register|90|17537}}
*{{Cite wikisource|title=Executive Order 14281|year=2025}}
*{{Cite web |date=April 23, 2025 |title=Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/ |website=[[whitehouse.gov]] |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== Title VII{{snd}}equal employment opportunity ===
{{see also|Bennett Amendment|United States labor law|Employment discrimination law in the United States}}
'''Title VII''' of the Act, codified as '''Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of [[Title 42 of the United States Code]]''', prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see {{usc|42|2000e-2}}<ref name = "Finduslaw">{{cite web |url=http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21 |title=Civil Rights Act of 1964 – CRA – Title VII – Equal Employment Opportunities – 42 US Code Chapter 21 |publisher=finduslaw |access-date=June 6, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101021141154/http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21 |archive-date=October 21, 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref>). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b)]. Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of their association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.<ref>''[[Parr v. Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Company]]'', 791 F.2d 888 (11th Cir. 1986).</ref> The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (''see'' [[Pregnancy Discrimination#Pregnancy Discrimination Act|Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978]], [[Age Discrimination in Employment Act]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://finduslaw.com/age_discrimination_in_employment_act_of_1967_adea_29_u_s_code_chapter_14 |title=Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 |publisher=Finduslaw.com |access-date=June 6, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111208062408/http://finduslaw.com/age_discrimination_in_employment_act_of_1967_adea_29_u_s_code_chapter_14 |archive-date=December 8, 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref> [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990]]).

In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait if the trait is a [[bona fide occupational qualification]] (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To make a BFOQ defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the trait and the ability to perform the job; the BFOQ's relation to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and that there is no less restrictive or reasonable alternative (''[[United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.]]'', {{ussc|499|187|1991|reporter-volume=111 S. Ct. 1196}}, 111 S. Ct. 1196). BFOQ is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (''[[Dothard v. Rawlinson]]'', {{ussc|433|321|1977}} 97 S. Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a BFOQ (''Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School{{snd}}Bishop Estate'', 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).<ref>{{cite web |title=Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kamehameha Schools/bishop Estate |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/990/458/434309/ |website=[[Justia]] |access-date=1 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120527125620/http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/990/458/434309/ |archive-date=27 May 2012 |date=10 May 1993 |url-status=live}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

Title VII allows any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the [[Communist Party of the United States]] or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the [[Subversive Activities Control Act]] of 1950.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/images/act-06.jpg|title=H.R. 7152–16|access-date=December 28, 2019|archive-date=March 16, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160316134536/http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/images/act-06.jpg|url-status=live}}</ref>

There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

* Federal government; (the proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under [https://web.archive.org/web/20101021141154/http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21#17 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16])
* Federally recognized Native American tribes;<ref>Fields, C. K., & [[Harold Cheeseman|Cheeseman, H. R.]], ''Contemporary Employment Law'' ([[New York City|New York]]: [[Wolters Kluwer]], 2017), [https://books.google.com/books?id=zd0uDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA197 p. 197] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190330142445/https://books.google.com/books?id=zd0uDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA197 |date=March 30, 2019 }}</ref>
* Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
* Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations

The [[Bennett Amendment]] is a U.S. labor law provision in Title VII that limits sex discrimination claims regarding [[Equal pay for women|pay]] to the rules in the [[Equal Pay Act of 1963]]. It says an employer can "differentiate upon the basis of sex" when it compensates employees "if such differentiation is authorized by" the Equal Pay Act.

The [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]] (EEOC), as well as certain [[state fair employment practices agencies]] (FEPAs), enforce Title VII (see {{usc|42|2000e-4}}).<ref name = "Finduslaw"/> The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on employees' behalf. Where a state law contradicts federal law, it is overridden.<ref>U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration. (1999) "Chapter 2: Laws and Regulations with Implications for Assessments". [http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/psych304-3.2.1.pdf] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121130133044/http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/psych304-3.2.1.pdf|date=November 30, 2012}}</ref> Every state except Arkansas and Mississippi maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA [http://www.eeocoffice.com directory ]). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. They must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or they may lose the right to file suit. Title VII applies only to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year ({{usc|42|2000e#b}}).

'''2025 Executive Order'''

In April 2025, President Trump issued [[Executive Order 14281]] which orders, within 45 days, the Attorney General and the Chair of the [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]], "shall assess all pending investigations, civil suits, or positions taken in ongoing matters under every Federal civil rights law within their respective jurisdictions, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that rely on a theory of [[disparate-impact]] liability, and shall take appropriate action with respect to such matters consistent with the policy of this order."<ref name=":2" />

====Administrative precedents====
In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of [[gender identity]] or [[transgender]] status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with a transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex.<ref>[http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20ATF.txt ''Macy v. Holder''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141231094752/http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20ATF.txt |date=December 31, 2014 }}, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012)</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Quinones|first=Sam|author-link=Sam Quinones|title=EEOC rules job protections also apply to transgender people|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2012-apr-25-la-me-transgender-20120425-story.html|access-date=November 4, 2014|date=April 25, 2012|agency=Los Angeles Times|archive-date=December 20, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141220041529/http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/25/local/la-me-transgender-20120425|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration.<ref>{{cite news|last=Rosenberg|first=Mica|title=U.S. government lawsuits target transgender discrimination in workplace|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-employment-transexual-idUSKCN0HO29Z20140929|access-date=November 4, 2014|date=September 9, 2014|work=Reuters|archive-date=March 7, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307202324/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-employment-transexual-idUSKCN0HO29Z20140929|url-status=live}}</ref> {{as of|2014|November|}}, Commissioner [[Chai Feldblum]] is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.<ref>{{cite web|title=What You Should Know about EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers|url=http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm|publisher=Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|access-date=November 8, 2014|archive-date=November 8, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108192133/http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite tweet|user=chaifeldblum|first=Chai|last=Feldblum|author-link=Chai Feldblum|number=530426616821088256|date=November 6, 2014|title=ICYMI – EEOC helping LGBT people get protection from discrimination under sex discrimination laws.}}</ref>{{update inline|date=February 2021}}

On December 15, 2014, under a memorandum issued by [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Eric Holder]], the [[United States Department of Justice]] (DOJ) took a position aligned with the EEOC's, namely that the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title VII encompassed the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status. DOJ had already stopped opposing claims of discrimination brought by federal transgender employees.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justice-department-announces-reversal-on-litigating-transgen |title=Justice Department Will Now Support Transgender Discrimination Claims In Litigation |author=Geidner, Chris |date=December 18, 2014 |newspaper=[[BuzzFeed News]] |access-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171005202759/https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justice-department-announces-reversal-on-litigating-transgen |url-status=live }}</ref> The EEOC in 2015 reissued another non-binding memo, reaffirming its stance that sexual orientation was protected under Title VII.<ref name="NYTFEUER">{{cite news | title = Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn't Protect Gays | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html | work = [[The New York Times]] | date = July 27, 2017 | access-date = March 28, 2018 | archive-date = April 29, 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190429134558/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html | url-status = live }}</ref>

In October 2017, Attorney General [[Jeff Sessions]] withdrew the Holder memorandum.<ref name=BF-171005>{{cite news |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/jeff-sessions-just-reversed-a-policy-that-protects |title=Jeff Sessions Just Reversed A Policy That Protects Transgender Workers From Discrimination |author=Holden, Dominic |author-link=Dominic Holden |date=October 5, 2017 |newspaper=[[BuzzFeed News]] |access-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171005155031/https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/jeff-sessions-just-reversed-a-policy-that-protects |url-status=live }}</ref> According to a copy of Sessions' directive reviewed by ''BuzzFeed News'', he stated that Title VII should be narrowly interpreted to cover discrimination between "men and women". Sessions stated that as a matter of law, "Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Goico|first1=Allison L.|last2=Geller|first2=Hayley|title=US Attorney General Jefferson Sessions Issues New Guidance On Transgender Employees|url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-attorney-general-jefferson-sessions-issues-new-guidance-transgender-employees|access-date=October 15, 2017|work=The [[National Law Review]]|publisher=Dinsmore & Shohl LLP|date=October 6, 2017|archive-date=October 16, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016070541/https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-attorney-general-jefferson-sessions-issues-new-guidance-transgender-employees|url-status=live}}</ref> Devin O'Malley, on behalf of the DOJ, said, "the last administration abandoned that fundamental principle [that the Department of Justice cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided], which necessitated today's action." [[Sharon McGowan]], a lawyer with Lambda Legal who previously served in the Civil Rights division of DOJ, rejected that argument, saying "[T]his memo is not actually a reflection of the law as it is{{snd}}it's a reflection of what the DOJ wishes the law were" and "The Justice Department is actually getting back in the business of making anti-transgender law in court."<ref name=BF-171005 /> But the EEOC did not change its stance, putting it at odds with the DOJ in certain cases.<ref name="NYTFEUER"/>

===Title VIII{{snd}}registration and voting statistics===
'''Title VIII''' required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.

===Title IX{{snd}}intervention and removal of cases===
{{for|the prohibition of sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities|Title IX{{!}}Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972}}

'''Title IX''' made it easier to move civil rights cases from U.S. state courts to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists{{who|date=December 2015}} who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts.{{citation needed|date=December 2015}}

===Title X{{snd}}Community Relations Service===
'''Title X''' established the [[Community Relations Service]], tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination. It was originally an agency of the Department of Commerce, and later moved to the Department of Justice.

===Title XI{{snd}}miscellaneous===
'''Title XI''' gives a defendant accused of certain categories of criminal contempt in a matter arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Act the right to a jury trial. If convicted, the defendant can be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months.

==Major amendments==

===Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972===
{{Main|Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972}}

Between 1965 and 1972, Title VII lacked any strong enforcement provisions. Instead, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was authorized only to investigate external claims of discrimination. The EEOC could then refer cases to the Justice Department for litigation if reasonable cause was found. The EEOC documented the nature and magnitude of discriminatory employment practices, the first study of this kind done.

In 1972, Congress passed the [[Equal Employment Opportunity Act]].<ref>[http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/milestones/1972.html Milestones In The History of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 1972] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181112174329/https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/milestones/1972.html |date=November 12, 2018 }} Accessed July 1, 2014</ref> The Act amended Title VII and gave EEOC authority to initiate its own enforcement litigation. The EEOC now played a major role in guiding judicial interpretations of civil rights legislation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_employment_opportunity_commission|title=Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|work=LII / Legal Information Institute|access-date=May 28, 2015|archive-date=May 28, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150528200845/https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_employment_opportunity_commission|url-status=live}}</ref>

==United States Supreme Court cases==

===Title II case law===

====''Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States'' (1964)====
{{Main|Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States}}

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case ''Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States'' established the law's constitutionality, but did not settle all the legal questions surrounding it.

====''Katzenbach v. McClung'' (1964)====
{{Main|Katzenbach v. McClung}}

====''United States v. Johnson'' (1968)====
{{Main|United States v. Johnson (1968)}}

====''Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.'' (1968)====
{{Main|Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.}}

====''Daniel v. Paul'' (1969)====

====''McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green'' (1973)====
{{Main|McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green}}

===Title VI case law===

====''Lau v. Nichols'' (1974)====
{{Main|Lau v. Nichols}}

In the 1974 case ''Lau v. Nichols'', the Supreme Court ruled that the [[San Francisco]] school district was violating non-English speaking students' rights under the 1964 act by placing them in regular classes rather than providing some sort of accommodation for them.<ref name="'70s 270">{{cite book |title= How We Got Here: The '70s|last= Frum|first= David|author-link= David Frum|year= 2000|page= [https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum/page/270 270]|publisher= Basic Books|isbn= 978-0465041954|url=https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum|url-access= registration}}</ref>

====''Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke'' (1978)====
{{Main|Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke}}

====''Alexander v. Sandoval'' (2001)====
{{Main|Alexander v. Sandoval}}

====''Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard'' (2023)====
{{Main|Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard}}

===Title VII case law===

====''Griggs v. Duke Power Co.'' (1971)====
{{Main|Griggs v. Duke Power Co.}}

====''Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.'' (1971)====
{{Main|Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.}}

In ''Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.'', a 1971 Supreme Court case about the Act's gender provisions, the Court ruled that a company could not discriminate against a potential female employee because she had a preschool-age child unless it did the same with potential male employees.<ref name="'70s 245"/> A federal court overruled an [[Ohio]] state law that barred women from obtaining jobs that required the ability to lift 25 pounds and required women but not men to take lunch breaks.<ref name="'70s 245"/> In ''[[Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations]]'', the Supreme Court decided that printing separate job listings for men and women is illegal, ending that practice at the country's newspapers. The [[United States Civil Service Commission]] ended the practice of designating federal jobs "women only" or "men only."<ref name="'70s 245"/>

====''Washington v. Davis'' (1976)====
{{Main|Washington v. Davis}}

====''TWA v. Hardison'' (1977)====
{{main article|TWA v. Hardison}}A [[Religion and business#Landmark United States Supreme Court cases|landmark United States Supreme Court case on religion and business]], holding that employers may fire employees who refuse to work on the [[Saturday|seventh-day]] in observation of a [[Biblical Sabbath|biblical sabbath]].

====''Dothard v. Rawlinson'' (1977)====
{{Main|Dothard v. Rawlinson}}

====''Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission'' (1978)====
{{Main|Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission}}

====''Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson'' (1986)====
{{Main|Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson}}

''Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson'', {{ussc|477|57|1986}} determined that sexual harassment is considered discrimination based on sex.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/sexualharassment0000coch|title=Sexual Harassment and the Law: the Mechelle Vinson Case|last=Cochran|first=Augustus B.|date=2004|publisher=University Press of Kansas|isbn=0700613234|location=Lawrence, Kan.|oclc=53284947|url-access=registration}}</ref>

====''Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins'' (1989)====
{{Main|Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins}}

''[[Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins]]'', {{ussc|490|228|1989}} established that discrimination related to non-conformity of gender stereotypical behavior is unallowable under Title VII.

====''Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio'' (1989)====
{{Main|Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio}}

====''United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.'' (1991)====
{{Main|United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.}}

====''Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services'' (1998)====
{{Main|Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.}}

''Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.'', {{ussc|523|75|1998}} further ruled that same-sex harassment is discrimination under Title VII.

====''Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White'' (2006)====
{{Main|Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White}}On June 22, 2006, in ''Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White'', the Supreme Court held that White's reassignment to from forklift operator to less desirable duties as a track laborer as well as her suspension without pay after complaining about workplace sexual harassment constituted retaliatory discrimination.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/05-259 |access-date=2023-12-01 |website= |language=en|title=Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White &#124; Oyez}}</ref> This was a landmark case because it clarified that Title VII's retaliation provision is not confined to harmful acts occurring at the workplace or are related to employment.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/53/ |access-date=2023-12-01 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref> Title VII's anti-discrimination provision prevents actions including a hire, a discharge, a change in compensation, conditions, privileges, opportunities, or status of employment.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 |url=https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964 |access-date=2023-12-01 |website=US EEOC |language=en}}</ref> However, Title VII's retaliation provision contains no such limiting language.<ref name=":1">{{Citation |last= |title=Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White (Syllabus) |date=2006-06-22 |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-259.ZS.html |access-date=2023-12-01 |language=en-us}}</ref> The definition of retaliation against a complainant of sexual harassment was changed to encompass any unfavorable job decision or treatment that might deter a "reasonable worker" from filing a discrimination claim or from supporting one.<ref name=":1" />

====''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'' (2007)====
{{Main|Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.}}

====''Ricci v. DeStefano'' (2009)====
{{Main|Ricci v. DeStefano}}

====''University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar'' (2013)====
{{Main|University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar}}

====''Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores'' (2015)====
{{Main|Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores}}

====''Green v. Brennan'' (2016)====
{{Main|Green v. Brennan}}

==== ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' (2020) and ''Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda'' (2020) ====
{{Main|Bostock v. Clayton County|Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda}}

On June 15, 2020, in ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Title VII protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sex apply to discrimination against [[LGBT]] individuals.<ref>{{cite web|title=Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/17-1618/|access-date=June 16, 2020|website=Justia Law|language=en|archive-date=June 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615223128/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/17-1618/|url-status=live}}</ref> In the opinion, Justice [[Neil Gorsuch]] wrote that a business that discriminates against homosexual or transgender individuals is discriminating "for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex." Thus discrimination against homosexual and transgender employees is a form of sex discrimination, which is forbidden under Title VII.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workers-supreme-court.html|title=Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules|first=Adam|last=Liptak|author-link=Pete Williams (journalist)|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 15, 2020|access-date=June 15, 2020|archive-date=June 17, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617162445/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workers-supreme-court.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

''Bostock'' was consolidated with ''Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda''.<ref name="bostock ruling"/> Before the Supreme Court's intervention, there was a split in the circuit courts, including these two cases<ref name="title7lgbtq">{{cite news |last1=Chappell |first1=Bill |title=Supreme Court Will Hear Cases On LGBTQ Discrimination Protections For Employees |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/04/22/716010002/supreme-court-will-hear-cases-on-lgbtq-discrimination-protections-for-employees |access-date=April 23, 2019 |work=[[NPR]] |date=April 22, 2019 |archive-date=April 23, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190423011833/https://www.npr.org/2019/04/22/716010002/supreme-court-will-hear-cases-on-lgbtq-discrimination-protections-for-employees |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/supreme-court-clashes-over-meaning-of-sex-in-lgbt-discrimination-cases.html | title = Supreme Court clashes over meaning of 'sex' in LGBT discrimination cases | first = Tucker | last = Higgens | date = October 8, 2019 | access-date = October 8, 2019 | publisher = [[CNBC]] | archive-date = October 8, 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191008170007/https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/supreme-court-clashes-over-meaning-of-sex-in-lgbt-discrimination-cases.html | url-status = live }}</ref> as well as ''Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital'' in the Eleventh Circuit.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-lgbt/u-s-high-court-turns-away-dispute-over-gay-worker-protections-idUSKBN1E51OT |title=U.S. high court turns away dispute over gay worker protections |author=Chung, Andrew |date=December 11, 2017 |work=Reuters |agency=Reuters |access-date=December 11, 2017 |archive-date=December 11, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171211165329/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-lgbt/u-s-high-court-turns-away-dispute-over-gay-worker-protections-idUSKBN1E51OT |url-status=live }}</ref>

====''R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission'' (2020)====
{{Main|R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission}}

''R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission'' determined that Title VII covers gender identity, including [[transgender]] status.<ref name="title7lgbtq"/><ref name="bostock ruling">{{cite web | url = https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-existing-civil-rights-law-protects-gay-lesbian-n1231018 | title = Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects gay and lesbian workers | first = Pete | last = Williams | author-link=Pete Williams (journalist) | date = June 15, 2020 | access-date = June 15, 2020 | work = [[NBC News]] | archive-date = January 22, 2021 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210122221748/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-existing-civil-rights-law-protects-gay-lesbian-n1231018 | url-status = live }}</ref>

==== ''Groff v. DeJoy'' (2023) ====
{{Main|Groff v. DeJoy}}

==Influence==

===Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990===
The [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990]] – which has been called "the most important piece of federal legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964" – was influenced both by the structure and substance of the previous Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was arguably of equal importance, and "draws substantially from the structure of that landmark legislation [Civil Rights Act of 1964]". The Americans with Disabilities Act paralleled its landmark predecessor structurally, drawing upon many of the same titles and statutes. For example, "Title I of the ADA, which bans employment discrimination by private employers on the basis of disability, parallels Title VII of the Act". Similarly, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, "which proscribes discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations, tracks Title II of the 1964 Act while expanding upon the list of public accommodations covered." The Americans with Disabilities Act extended "the principle of nondiscrimination to people with disabilities",<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Dinerstein|first1=Robert D.|title=The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Progeny of the Civil Rights Act of 1964|journal=Human Rights|date=Summer 2004|volume=31|issue=3|pages=10–11|publisher=[[American Bar Association]]|jstor=27880436|issn=0046-8185}}</ref> an idea unsought in the United States before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

==See also==
* [[Affirmative action in the United States]]
* [[Angelita C. et al. v. California Department of Pesticide Regulation]]
* [[Bennett Amendment]]
* [[Bourke B. Hickenlooper]]
* [[Civil Rights Movement]]
* [[Post–civil rights era in African-American history]]
* [[Jews in the civil rights movement]]
* ''[[The Negro Motorist Green Book]]''

===Other civil rights legislation===
{{Colbegin}}
* [[Civil Rights Act of 1866]]
* [[Civil Rights Act of 1871]]
* [[Civil Rights Act of 1991]]
* [[Employment Non-Discrimination Act]]
* [[Equality Act of 2015]] (not passed)
* [[Enforcement Act of 1870]]
* [[First Enforcement Act of 1871]]
* [[Second Enforcement Act of 1871]]
* [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]]
{{Colend}}

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Bibliography==
* Branch, Taylor (1998), ''Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963–65'', New York: Simon & Schuster.
* Freeman, Jo. "How 'Sex' Got Into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as a Maker of Public Policy" ''Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice'', Vol. 9, No. 2, March 1991, pp.&nbsp;163–184. [http://www.jofreeman.com/lawandpolicy/titlevii.htm online version]
* {{cite book |last1=Golway |first1=Terry |author1-link=Terry Golway |title=JFK: Day by Day: A Chronicle of the 1,036 Days of John F. Kennedy's Presidency |date=2010 |publisher=Running Press |isbn=9780762437429 |url=https://archive.org/details/jfkdaybydaychron00terr }}
* Harrison, Cynthia (1988), ''On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues 1945–1968'', Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
* Jeong, Gyung-Ho, Gary J. Miller, and Itai Sened, "Closing the Deal: Negotiating Civil Rights Legislation", ''American Political Science Review'', 103 (Nov. 2009)
* Loevy, Robert D. ed. (1997), ''The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Law That Ended Racial Segregation'', Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
* Risen, Clay. ''The Bill of the Century: The Epic Battle for the Civil Rights Act'' (2014) [https://archive.org/details/billofcenturyepi0000rise online]

==Further reading==
* Brauer, Carl M., "Women Activists, Southern Conservatives, and the Prohibition of Sexual Discrimination in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act", 49 ''Journal of Southern History'', February 1983.
* Burstein, Paul (1985), ''Discrimination, Jobs and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal'', Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
* Finley, Keith M. (2008), ''Delaying the Dream: Southern Senators and the Fight Against Civil Rights, 1938–1965'', Baton Rouge: LSU Press.
* Graham, Hugh (1990), ''The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy, 1960–1972'', New York: Oxford University Press.
* Gregory, Raymond F. (2014). ''The Civil Rights Act and the Battle to End Workplace Discrimination.'' Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
* Loevy, Robert D. (1990), ''To End All Segregation: The Politics of the Passage of The Civil Rights Act of 1964'', Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
* Loevy, Robert D. "The Presidency and Domestic Policy: The Civil Rights Act of 1964," in David C. Kozak and Kenneth N. Ciboski, ed., ''The American Presidency'' (Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1985), pp.&nbsp;411–419. [http://faculty1.coloradocollege.edu/~bloevy/CivilRightsActOf1964/ online version]
* Mann, Robert (1996). ''The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights.''
* Pedriana, Nicholas, and Stryker, Robin. "The Strength of a Weak Agency: Enforcement of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Expansion of State Capacity, 1965–1971," ''American Journal of Sociology'', Nov 2004, Vol. 110 Issue 3, pp 709–760
* {{cite book |title=Revolution in Civil Rights |date=1967 |publisher=Congressional Quarterly Service |oclc=894988538|url=https://archive.org/details/revolutionincivi00cong}}
* Rodriguez, Daniel B. and Weingast, Barry R. "The Positive Political Theory of Legislative History: New Perspectives on the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Its Interpretation", ''University of Pennsylvania Law Review'', Vol. 151. (2003) [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry_Weingast/publication/228184991_The_Positive_Political_Theory_of_Legislative_History_New_Perspectives_on_the_1964_Civil_Rights_Act_and_its_Interpretation/links/02e7e52c453f42da4d000000.pdf online]
* Rothstein, Mark A., Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman (1987). ''Employment Law: Cases and Materials.'' Foundation Press.
* Warren, Dan R. (2008), ''If It Takes All Summer: Martin Luther King, the KKK, and States' Rights in St. Augustine, 1964'', Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
* Whalen, Charles and Whalen, Barbara (1985), ''The Longest Debate: A Legislative History of the 1964 Civil Rights Act'', Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.
* Woods, Randall B. (2006), ''LBJ: Architect of American Ambition'', New York: Free Press, ch 22.
* Zimmer, Michael J., Charles A. Sullivan & Richard F. Richards, ''Cases and Materials on Employment Discrimination'', Little, Brown and Company (1982).

==External links==
{{Sister project links |wikt=no |c=Category:Civil Rights Act of 1964|n=no |q=no |s=Civil Rights Act of 1964 |author=no |b=no |v=no |d=Q585962 |m=no |mw=no}}
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-342/uslm/COMPS-342.xml Civil Rights Act of 1964] as amended ([https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-342/pdf/COMPS-342.pdf PDF]/[https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/COMPS-342/ details]) in the [[United States Government Publishing Office|GPO]] [https://www.govinfo.gov/help/comps Statute Compilations collection]
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/88/public/352?link-type=pdf&.pdf Civil Rights Act of 1964] as enacted ([https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/88/public/352?link-type=details details]) in the [[United States Statutes at Large|US Statutes at Large]]
* [http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64_contents.htm Narrative: The Civil Rights Act of 1964] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200217005735/http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64_contents.htm |date=February 17, 2020 }} – Provided by [https://www.dirksencenter.org/ The Dirksen Center]
* [http://crdl.usg.edu/events/civil_rights_act_1964/ Civil Rights Act of 1964] – Provided by the [http://crdl.usg.edu/ Civil Rights Digital Library]
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1964-pt2/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1964-pt2-10-2.pdf 110 Congressional Record (Bound) – Volume 110, Part 2 (January 30, 1964 to February 10, 1964)], ''[[Congressional Record]]'' House February 10 vote roll call pp.&nbsp;2804–2805
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1964-pt11/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1964-pt11-3-2.pdf 110 Congressional Record (Bound) – Volume 110, Part 11 (June 17, 1964 to June 26, 1964)], ''Congressional Record'' Senate June 19 vote roll call p.&nbsp;14511
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1964-pt12/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1964-pt12-4-2.pdf 110 Congressional Record (Bound) – Volume 110, Part 12 (June 29, 1964 to July 21, 1964)], ''Congressional Record'' House July 2 amendment vote roll call p.&nbsp;15897

{{Civil rights movement|state=collapsed}}
{{John F. Kennedy}}
{{Lyndon B. Johnson}}
{{Alice Paul}}
{{Affirmative action in the United States}}
{{Voting rights in the United States}}
{{African American topics}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:1964 in American law]]
[[Category:1964 in American politics]]
[[Category:1964 in labor relations]]
[[Category:88th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Anti-discrimination law in the United States]]
[[Category:Anti-racism in the United States]]
[[Category:Articles containing video clips]]
[[Category:Civil rights in the United States]]
[[Category:Events of the civil rights movement]]
[[Category:July 1964 in the United States]]
[[Category:Liberalism in the United States]]
[[Category:Civil Rights Acts]]
[[Category:United States federal criminal legislation]]
[[Category:United States federal labor legislation]]
[[Category:Industrial and organizational psychology]]
[[Category:Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson]]