Understanding the BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1954) reversal of PLESSY V. FERGUSON
HOW CAN WE UNDERSTAND THE DECISION IN BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1954)?
In 1954, the Justices on the Supreme Court "broke down" as follows (prior to the EARL WARREN , the new CHIEF JUSTICE joining the Court in mid-year):
7 liberals (including Felix Frankfurter, the most influential justice on the Court at the time) and 2 conservatives
4 judicial activists and 5 judicial restraints (including Felix Frankfurter, the most influential justice on the Court at the time)
* How can we explain so many liberals on the Court at that time (remember, right now the Court had 4 liberals and 5 conservatives)?
* Since there were so many liberals, one might expect an immediate reversal of PLESSY v. FERGUSON (1896). Why?
KEY FACT TO REMEMBER: Brown v. Board of Education and Plessy v. Ferguson both involved two questions: (1) Were individual rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment violated by "separate but equal"? and (2) Did the Court have the authority to override a state law passed under the authority of the state's constitution and the U.S. Constitution's federal system of powers?
* If the segregation law had been a federal law (that is, passed by Congress), the second issue would not have been in play, only the first issue.
Therefore, how would you expect the Justices would have decided the case?
* Why did the fact that education is a traditional state power pose a problem then?
A FLY IN THE OINTMENT: When a new CHIEF JUSTICE (EARL WARREN) came on board, everyone expected nothing would change, because he was appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican (the first Republican President since 1933). WARREN was a former Attorney general and Republican Governor of the state of California.
* Why did everyone expect no substantive change in the make-up of the Court?
* Did it matter that much whether WARREN turned out to be a liberal or a conservative on the Court?
* Did it matter if WARREN turned out to be an advocate of judicial restraint or judicial activism?
* Why did the justice feel it was VITAL that, if Plessy v. Ferguson was REVERSED in Brown v. Board of Education, the decsion should be UNANIMOUS?
In 1954, the Justices on the Supreme Court "broke down" as follows (prior to the EARL WARREN , the new CHIEF JUSTICE joining the Court in mid-year):
7 liberals (including Felix Frankfurter, the most influential justice on the Court at the time) and 2 conservatives
4 judicial activists and 5 judicial restraints (including Felix Frankfurter, the most influential justice on the Court at the time)
* How can we explain so many liberals on the Court at that time (remember, right now the Court had 4 liberals and 5 conservatives)?
* Since there were so many liberals, one might expect an immediate reversal of PLESSY v. FERGUSON (1896). Why?
KEY FACT TO REMEMBER: Brown v. Board of Education and Plessy v. Ferguson both involved two questions: (1) Were individual rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment violated by "separate but equal"? and (2) Did the Court have the authority to override a state law passed under the authority of the state's constitution and the U.S. Constitution's federal system of powers?
* If the segregation law had been a federal law (that is, passed by Congress), the second issue would not have been in play, only the first issue.
Therefore, how would you expect the Justices would have decided the case?
* Why did the fact that education is a traditional state power pose a problem then?
A FLY IN THE OINTMENT: When a new CHIEF JUSTICE (EARL WARREN) came on board, everyone expected nothing would change, because he was appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican (the first Republican President since 1933). WARREN was a former Attorney general and Republican Governor of the state of California.
* Why did everyone expect no substantive change in the make-up of the Court?
* Did it matter that much whether WARREN turned out to be a liberal or a conservative on the Court?
* Did it matter if WARREN turned out to be an advocate of judicial restraint or judicial activism?
* Why did the justice feel it was VITAL that, if Plessy v. Ferguson was REVERSED in Brown v. Board of Education, the decsion should be UNANIMOUS?