jan 1, 1896 - Plessy v. Fergusan

Description:

Plessy v Ferguson (1869)
Overview:
Following the Separate Car Act which segregated railway cars, Homer Plessy refused to move from a white only seat. The defense argued that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court held that segregation when “separate but equal” was constitutional because it didn’t imply an inferior race.

History:
In 1865 African Americans received freedom from enslavement and in 1868 they were granted citizenship, but they were still highly criticized and discriminated by the general public. During this time the KKK was prominent made many efforts to kill, diminish, and disenfranchise African Americans. The “separate but equal” ruling of this case was later overturned in Brown v Board of Education.

Biography:
Defense Lawyer- M.J. Cunningham
Cunningham was born in 1842. He was a jack of all trades, operating as a physician, merchant, planter, lawyer, and Christian minister. He was the Attorney General of Louisiana for three inconsecutive terms, a member of the Louisiana State Senate, and a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives.

Appellant Lawyer- F.D. McKenney and S.F. Phillips

Petitioner- Homer Adolph Plessy
Respondent- John Ferguson

Facts:
Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act which established separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1862, Homer Plessy, who was ⅞ white (legally Black in Louisiana), sat in a white only seat and was asked to move to a black only car. When he refused, he was jailed. Plessy’s attorneys argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issue:
Does the Separate Car Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

Rule of Law:
In a 7-1 decision authored by Justice Brown, the Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional. The 14th amendment was intended to create equality between the races to abolish systemic racism, however, separate but equal treatment did not imply an inferior race. Justice Harlan said in his dissent that the Constitution should grant equal access to civil rights.

Application:
Separate but equal accommodations for whites and blacks do not violate the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Conclusion:
The court held that “separate but equal” was constitutional.

Related Cases:

Like Plessy v Ferguson, these cases discuss the application and Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th amendment.

Brown v Board of Education followed Plessy v Ferguson and overturned the separate but equal rule when Linda Brown, an African American third grader, was denied admission into the white schools near her home and was forced to attend a school that was miles away. It was held that segregation in public schools based on race violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Loving v Virginia questioned whether the laws forbidding interracial marriages violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Richard and Mildred Loving met in Virginia and tried to get married in there, but it violated the Racial Integrity Act which forbade interracial marriages. They were banished from Virginia for 25 years. The Supreme Court had to answer whether or not a law that prohibits marriage exclusively on the basis of race violated the 14th Amendment. The court held that these laws were deeply rooted in racial discrimination and that it did violate the 14th amendment.

Regents of the University of California v Bakke discussed reversed-racism in which Bakke was denied a spot at the University of California Medical School because the school had to meet a quota of having 16 minorities. He had a better score than all of these students and the Supreme Court rendered the action unconstitutional, but that race could be a factor in the admissions process. Justice Powell stated in the majority opinion that racial quotas violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Articles:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-huge-supreme-court-cases-about-the-14th-amendment
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537
http://law.jrank.org/pages/2726/Plessy-v-Ferguson-1896.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Joseph_Cunningham
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537 https://www.thoughtco.com/african-american-history-timeline-1865-1869-45423

ningham
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537

Added to timeline:

Date:

Images:

YouTube: