91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971), which addressed congressional regulation of "intrastate extortionate credit transactions”; Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 85 S.Ct. 348, 13 L.Ed.2d 258 (1964), which reviewed the application of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to "inns and hotels catering to interstate guests”; and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 85 S.Ct. 377, 13 L.Ed.2d 290 (1964), a case involving application of the same statute to "the regulation of ... restaurants utilizing substantial interstate supplies.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 559-60, 115 S.Ct. at 1630. 9 . For example, in McClung, cited with approval in Lopez, 514 U.S. at 559, 115 S.Ct. at 1630, the Court upheld application of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See Oral Arg. Tr. at 5 (acknowledgment
holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity holding a regulation is contentneutral as long as it is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration holding postlopez but premorrison that the regulated activity  need not be commercial so long as its effect on interstate commerce is substantial holding that the terms arbitration or arbitrate need not be used as long as binding review by a third party is clearly the intention of the parties