Plessy v. Ferguson summary
PLESSY V. FERGUSON 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. CT. 1138 (1896)
GENERAL RULE OF LAW: Separate but equal accommodations for the races on a train car did not violate the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments because state law made it a crime for a black to refuse to leave a train car for whites, and state legislatures were given wide discretion in promoting peace and good order.
PROCEDURE SUMMARY:
Plaintiff: Homer A. Plessy (P) Defendant: Hon. John H. Ferguson, district court judge (D)
State Trial Court Decision: Held Plessy (P) guilty of violating the 1890 Louisiana state law
State Supreme Court: Affirmed
U.S. Supreme Court: Affirmed, upholding the separate but equal doctrine
FACTS: On June 7, 1892, Homer A. Plessy (P), a citizen of the United States, was ejected from a Louisiana passenger train after he refused to move from the seat he purchased in a coach for white passengers to a seat in a coach designated for nonwhite passengers. Plessy (P) was arrested and prosecuted under a Louisiana law passed in 1890 that required passenger trains to provide separate but equal coaches for whites and blacks. Plessy (P) argued that he was entitled to be treated as part of the white race, with all the rights and privileges afforded to whites. Plessy (P) considered himself white, as he was 7/8 Caucasian blood and 1/8 African blood. The district court judge (D) found that the Louisiana law was constitutional because the passenger train remained within Louisiana’s borders, even though a previous court decision
had found the law unconstitutional for passenger trains traveling out of Louisiana to other states. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, and Plessy (P) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Does a Louisiana state law that requires separate but equal coaches for blacks and whites on passenger trains violate the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?
HOLDING AND DECISION: (Brown, J.) No. The law does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, because the Thirteenth Amendment applies to slavery, and slavery is not at issue in this case. Further, the Louisiana state law allowing “separate but equal” racial accommodations also does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to ensure equality among the races, but not to abolish or ignore distinctions between the races. Separating races is a valid exercise of police power. While state police power is subject to a reasonableness standard that requires acts to comply with established usages, customs, and traditions and to promote public peace and good order, a law separating races in public transportation is not unreasonable. The decision of the lower court is affirmed.
COMMENTS: The Supreme Court did not rule on whether Plessy (P) should be considered white or black. Rather, the issue involved whether a state law could establish distinctions between the races. The affirmative action by the Supreme Court allowed separation as long as there was equality in provision of the service. Some have argued that this decision allowed the formal state support of the Jim Crow laws, which many Southern states had informally practiced after the Civil War and Reconstruction. This famous decision, which was not overturned until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case, established the doctrine that operated to allow individual states to discriminate in many aspects of our society, from public accommodations to schools to restaurants. The only dissenting justice was Justice Harlan. His grandson was to serve on the Brown court, which overturned this infamous decision. The elder Harlan made the famous statements that became the essence of the 1954 decision when he stated that “our constitution is color- blind” and that the separation of the races was a “badge of servitude.”
DiscussionQuestions:
1. Can this case be described as moving private discrimination to state-sanctioned discrimination? Why?
2. Although this decision may offend us today, can you imagine how it might have reflected the prevailing attitudes of Americans in 1896?
3. Do you think that our society is moving toward a conservative social posture similar to the attitudes reflected by this decision? Why or why not?
GENERAL RULE OF LAW: Separate but equal accommodations for the races on a train car did not violate the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments because state law made it a crime for a black to refuse to leave a train car for whites, and state legislatures were given wide discretion in promoting peace and good order.
PROCEDURE SUMMARY:
Plaintiff: Homer A. Plessy (P) Defendant: Hon. John H. Ferguson, district court judge (D)
State Trial Court Decision: Held Plessy (P) guilty of violating the 1890 Louisiana state law
State Supreme Court: Affirmed
U.S. Supreme Court: Affirmed, upholding the separate but equal doctrine
FACTS: On June 7, 1892, Homer A. Plessy (P), a citizen of the United States, was ejected from a Louisiana passenger train after he refused to move from the seat he purchased in a coach for white passengers to a seat in a coach designated for nonwhite passengers. Plessy (P) was arrested and prosecuted under a Louisiana law passed in 1890 that required passenger trains to provide separate but equal coaches for whites and blacks. Plessy (P) argued that he was entitled to be treated as part of the white race, with all the rights and privileges afforded to whites. Plessy (P) considered himself white, as he was 7/8 Caucasian blood and 1/8 African blood. The district court judge (D) found that the Louisiana law was constitutional because the passenger train remained within Louisiana’s borders, even though a previous court decision
had found the law unconstitutional for passenger trains traveling out of Louisiana to other states. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, and Plessy (P) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Does a Louisiana state law that requires separate but equal coaches for blacks and whites on passenger trains violate the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?
HOLDING AND DECISION: (Brown, J.) No. The law does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, because the Thirteenth Amendment applies to slavery, and slavery is not at issue in this case. Further, the Louisiana state law allowing “separate but equal” racial accommodations also does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to ensure equality among the races, but not to abolish or ignore distinctions between the races. Separating races is a valid exercise of police power. While state police power is subject to a reasonableness standard that requires acts to comply with established usages, customs, and traditions and to promote public peace and good order, a law separating races in public transportation is not unreasonable. The decision of the lower court is affirmed.
COMMENTS: The Supreme Court did not rule on whether Plessy (P) should be considered white or black. Rather, the issue involved whether a state law could establish distinctions between the races. The affirmative action by the Supreme Court allowed separation as long as there was equality in provision of the service. Some have argued that this decision allowed the formal state support of the Jim Crow laws, which many Southern states had informally practiced after the Civil War and Reconstruction. This famous decision, which was not overturned until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case, established the doctrine that operated to allow individual states to discriminate in many aspects of our society, from public accommodations to schools to restaurants. The only dissenting justice was Justice Harlan. His grandson was to serve on the Brown court, which overturned this infamous decision. The elder Harlan made the famous statements that became the essence of the 1954 decision when he stated that “our constitution is color- blind” and that the separation of the races was a “badge of servitude.”
DiscussionQuestions:
1. Can this case be described as moving private discrimination to state-sanctioned discrimination? Why?
2. Although this decision may offend us today, can you imagine how it might have reflected the prevailing attitudes of Americans in 1896?
3. Do you think that our society is moving toward a conservative social posture similar to the attitudes reflected by this decision? Why or why not?