PLessy v. ferguson
Case name: Homer A. Plessy v. John H. Ferguson
Year decided: 1896
Result: 7-1, in favor of Ferguson
Related constitutional issue/amendment: Fourteenth Amendment, (Section 1)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil rights
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains was constitutional based on the separate-but-equal doctrine, which stated that separate facilities for blacks and whites did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as such facilities were equal.
Quote from majority opinion: "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it...We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other's merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals."
Summary of the dissent: Justice Harlan called for a "color-blind" constitution and stated that the Court's ruling would become as infamous as that of Dred Scot v. Sanford. The statutes of Lousiana violate both the Fourteenth Amendment and the constitution itself.
Six-word summary: Separate-but-not-really-equal established.
Year decided: 1896
Result: 7-1, in favor of Ferguson
Related constitutional issue/amendment: Fourteenth Amendment, (Section 1)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil rights
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains was constitutional based on the separate-but-equal doctrine, which stated that separate facilities for blacks and whites did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as such facilities were equal.
Quote from majority opinion: "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it...We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other's merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals."
Summary of the dissent: Justice Harlan called for a "color-blind" constitution and stated that the Court's ruling would become as infamous as that of Dred Scot v. Sanford. The statutes of Lousiana violate both the Fourteenth Amendment and the constitution itself.
Six-word summary: Separate-but-not-really-equal established.