In addition, Rolleston maintained that it violated his Fifth Amendment rights to choose customers and operate his business as he wished and resulted in unjust deprivation of his property without due process of law and just compensation. Finally, he contended that Congress had placed him in a position of involuntary servitude by forcing him to rent available rooms to African Americans, thereby violating his Thirteenth Amendment rights. Rolleston noted that in 1944 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States held that even if acts committed in involuntary servitude are compensated, it still violates the Thirteenth Amendment.
in aDditioN, ROlleStOn maiNtaInEd tHat it ViolateD his FiFtH amenDmeNt riGhts to cHooSE CuStomers aNd operaTe hIS BusiNeSs as he wiSheD aND Resulted in unjust dePrIvation of his pRoPerty without due proCess oF Law aNd jUst COmpensaTIoN. fInalLy, he conteNded thaT coNgress HaD pLaCeD hIm In a pOSition oF InvolUNtAry sERviTUde BY forcINg him to Rent AvAiLable rOoMS To afriCan AmerIcAnS, therEby Violating HiS thiRTEeNtH aMENDmeNT RIghTs. rollestoN NoteD ThAt In 1944 thE fiFTh circuiT coURt Of aPPeALs For the UnIted STaTEs heLd tHat eVeN if ActS commitTED In iNvoLunTary sErvITude arE COmPensated, it sTIll violAtes thE thirtEenth AmeNdmeNt.