Plessy v.

Ferguson (1896)

Plaintiff: Homer Adolph Plessy

v.

Respondent: Criminal District Court Judge, John Howard Ferguson

OPINION 7-1 for Ferguson

 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In 1890, the Louisiana State Legislature passed a law called the Separate Car Act, which required
separate accommodations for blacks and whites on Louisiana railroads.

The law required train officers to "assign each passenger to the coach or compartment used for the race
to which such passenger belongs".

It also made it a misdemeanor for any passenger to "insist on going into a coach or compartment to
which by race he does not belong," punishable by either a $25 fine or up to 20 days in prison.

A civil rights group called the Committee of Citizens was dedicated to repealing the Separate Car Act and
fighting its implementation.

The Committee eventually persuaded Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race who was seven-eighths white
and one-eighth black ancestry to participate in an orchestrated test case to challenge the Act.

Plessy appeared to be a white person but was considered black under Louisiana law, thus he was not
allowed to sit in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train.

The committee’s plan was supported by the railroad company too because it thought the Act imposed
unnecessary costs via the purchase of additional railroad cars for segregation.

The committee for this plan also hired a private detective with arrest powers to detain Plessy, to ensure
that he would be charged for violating the Separate Car Act, and not be arrested for some other offense.

FACTS

On June 7, 1892, Plessy bought a ticket for the passenger train to travel from New Orleans, Louisiana to
Covington, Louisiana.

For travelling on the train, Plessy boarded a "Whites Only" compartment.

After Plessy took a seat in the whites-only railway car, he was asked to vacate it, and sit instead in the
blacks-only car.

Plessy refused and was arrested immediately by the detective.

As planned, the train was stopped, and Plessy was taken off the train.

He was then presented for trial in New Orleans Criminal District Court.
 CRIMINAL DISTRCIT COURT TRIAL

In the Criminal Trial Court, Plessy plead that the Separate Car Act of 1890 should be ruled
unconstitutional as it violates the provisions of 13th and 14th amendment of the Constitution.

Thus, this case should be thrown aside and he should be discharged of his liability.

But the Judge, John Howard Ferguson, dismissed the plea of petitioner and ruled that the railway
company comes under the jurisdiction of Louisiana state and it is within states’ residuary (police) power
to make laws for the railway company thus this act is constitutional.

LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

Plessy then filed a writ of prohibition in the Louisiana Supreme Court to stop hi criminal trial.

But the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the decision of Ferguson and also relied on precedents to
support its decision.

ISSUE BEFORE SC

Does the Separate Car Act of 1890 violate the provisions of thirteenth amendment and fourteenth
amendment of USA?

SUPREME COURT OF USA

The SC analyzed the plea of petitioners in detail.

With regards to the petitioners’ claim of violation of thirteenth amendment of constitution, the SC ruled
that:

 The thirteenth amendment provides for abolition of slavery, where slavery is defined as
involuntary servitude—a state of suppression where individuals are treated as chattel and don’t
have legal rights over their own person, property, and services.
 The statute, according to this interpretation, establishes a legal difference between the white
and colored races based on physical characteristics (color) but does not impose a state of
bondage or ownership of one race by another.
 Thus, it does not promote slavery or violate the provisions of thirteenth amendment as claimed
by the petitioner.

With regards to the fourteenth amendments the court brings into consideration the main issue that
whether the Separate Car Act is reasonable act?

 The judge ruled that legislatures have discretion to consider established customs and traditions
for the promotion of public comfort and order.
 The court compares the Louisiana statute to existing laws mandating separate schools for
colored children, suggesting if one is constitutional, so is the other.
  A key point is the court's rejection of the idea that enforced separation implies racial inferiority.
 The court pointed out that the error is not in the law but in the thinking and argument of
petitioner, placing the responsibility on the interpretation of the law by the colored race.
 The court contends that achieving social equality requires natural affinities and mutual
appreciation, not legislation.
 It asserts that legislation cannot erase racial instincts or physical differences and may even
worsen the situation if it imposes laws.
 The passage distinguishes between civil and political equality (which the Constitution can
ensure) and social equality (which legislation cannot impose).

DISSENTING OPINION

In his dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution
should be "color-blind" and that distinctions based on race were incompatible with the principles of
equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Harlan rejected the
notion of "separate but equal," contending that even if facilities were nominally equal, the act of
segregating individuals based on race inherently conveyed a message of inferiority. He foresaw the
lasting consequences of the Court's decision, predicting social strife and emphasizing that the
Constitution demanded a more inclusive interpretation. Justice Harlan's dissent, with its moral clarity
and commitment to the ideals of equality, laid the groundwork for later challenges to segregation,
ultimately contributing to the eventual overturning of Plessy in the landmark case Brown v. Board of
Education in 1954.

SIGNIFICANCE

The Court argued that segregation, as long as it provided equal facilities, did not imply the inferiority of
one race to another consequently it did not violate the 14th amendment’s provisions. Thus, establishing
the legal doctrine of “separate but equal”.

Here's how the outcome affected the principles mentioned:

1. Separate but Equal Doctrine Upheld:

 The Court, in a 7-1 decision, upheld the constitutionality of state laws that enforced
racial segregation in public facilities, such as trains, under the doctrine of "separate but
equal." This decision essentially sanctioned and legitimized the practice of racial
segregation.

2. Equal Protection Clause:

 The Court's ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson had a significant impact on the interpretation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It allowed for the
segregation of races as long as the facilities were considered equal, but this
interpretation was fundamentally at odds with the spirit of equal protection.
3. Legalization of Discriminatory Laws:

 The outcome of Plessy v. Ferguson provided legal validation for discriminatory laws
based on race, particularly in the Southern United States. It allowed states to enact and
enforce laws that mandated segregation in various public spaces, including schools,
transportation, and other facilities.

4. Entrenchment of Racial Segregation:

 Plessy's outcome entrenched racial segregation as a legally acceptable practice. It had a

lasting impact on American society by institutionalizing and normalizing racial
separation in public life.

5. Jim Crow Laws and Social Practices:

 The decision reinforced the development and implementation of Jim Crow laws, which
enforced racial segregation in public facilities and services. These laws perpetuated
racial inequality and discrimination.

6. Dissenting Opinion's Influence Over Time:

 While Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion argued against the "separate but equal"
doctrine and asserted the idea that the Constitution is color-blind, the majority opinion
prevailed. However, over time, Harlan's dissent gained recognition for its principled
stand against institutionalized segregation.