Plessy v. Ferguson
|Plessy v. Ferguson|
|Argued April 13, 1896
Decided May 18, 1896
|Full case name||Homer A. Plessy v. John H. Ferguson|
|Citations||163 U.S. 537 (more)
16 S. Ct. 1138; 41 L. Ed. 256; 1896 U.S. LEXIS 3390
|Prior history||Ex parte Plessy, 11 So. 948 (La. 1892)|
|The "separate but equal" provision of private services mandated by state government is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.|
|Majority||Brown, joined by Fuller, Field, Gray, Shiras, White, Peckham|
|Brewer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|U.S. Const. amend. XIV; 1890 La. Acts 152|
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".
The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.
After the Supreme Court ruling, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), which had brought the suit and had arranged for Homer Plessy's arrest, in an act of civil disobedience in order to challenge Louisiana's segregation law, replied, "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred."
In 1890, the state of Louisiana passed a law (the Separate Car Act) that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars. Concerned, a group of prominent black, creole, and white New Orleans residents formed the Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) dedicated to repeal the law. They eventually persuaded Homer Plessy to participate in an orchestrated test case. Plessy was born a free man and was an "octoroon" (someone of seven-eighths Caucasian descent and one-eighth African descent). However, under Louisiana law, he was classified as black, and thus required to sit in the "colored" car.
On June 7, 1892, Plessy bought a first class ticket at the Press Street Depot and boarded a "whites only" car of the East Louisiana Railroad in New Orleans, Louisiana, bound for Covington, Louisiana. The railroad company, which opposed the law on the grounds that it would require the purchase of more railcars, had been previously informed of Plessy's racial lineage, and the intent to challenge the law. Additionally, the committee hired a private detective with arrest powers to detain Plessy, to ensure he was charged for violating the Separate Car Act, as opposed to a vagrancy or some other offense. 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 at Press and Royal streets. Plessy was remanded for trial in Orleans Parish.
In his case, Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana, Plessy's lawyers argued that the state law which required East Louisiana Railroad to segregate trains had denied him his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. However, the judge presiding over his case, John Howard Ferguson, ruled that Louisiana had the right to regulate railroad companies as long as they operated within state boundaries. Plessy was convicted and sentenced to pay a $25 fine. Judge Ferguson immediately sought a writ of prohibition.
The Committee of Citizens took Plessy's appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, where he again found an unreceptive ear, as the state Supreme Court upheld Judge Ferguson's ruling. Undaunted, the Committee appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 1896. Two legal briefs were submitted on Plessy's behalf. One was signed by Albion W. Tourgée and James C. Walker and the other by Samuel F. Phillips and his legal partner F. D. McKenney. Oral arguments were held before the Supreme Court on April 13, 1896. Tourgée and Phillips appeared in the courtroom to speak on behalf of Plessy.
Tourgée built his case upon violations of Plessy's rights under the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the same rights to all citizens of the United States, and the equal protection of those rights, against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Tourgée argued that the reputation of being a black man was "property", which, by the law, implied the inferiority of African-Americans as compared to whites.
In a 7 to 1 decision handed down on May 18, 1896 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate because of the death of his daughter), the Court rejected Plessy's arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment, seeing no way in which the Louisiana statute violated it. In addition, the majority of the Court rejected the view that the Louisiana law implied any inferiority of blacks, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it contended that the law separated the two races as a matter of public policy.
When summarizing, Justice Brown declared, "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."
While the Court did not find a difference in quality between the whites-only and blacks-only railway cars, this was manifestly untrue in the case of most other separate facilities, such as public toilets, cafés, and public schools, where the facilities designated for blacks were poorer than those designated for whites.
Justice John Marshall Harlan, who decried the excesses of the Ku Klux Klan, wrote a scathing dissent in which he predicted the court's decision would become as infamous as that of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). As heralded as this dissent may be, in which Harlan called for a "color-blind" constitution, it should be noted that he did not view all races as equal. In his dissent, Harlan highlighted the plight of blacks by pointing out that the Chinese, a race he viewed as inherently "different", could still ride with whites. "There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race", he wrote.
New Orleans historian Keith Weldon Medley, author of We As Freemen: Plessy v. Ferguson, The Fight Against Legal Segregation, said the words in Justice Harlan's "Great Dissent" originated with papers filed with the court by "The Citizen's Committee".
The case helped cement the legal foundation for the doctrine of separate but equal, the idea that segregation based on classifications was legal as long as facilities were of equal quality. However, Southern state governments refused to provide blacks with genuinely equal facilities and resources in the years after the Plessy decision. The states not only separated races but, in actuality, ensured differences in quality. In January 1897, Homer Plessy pleaded guilty to the violation and paid the fine.
Plessy legitimized the move toward segregation practices begun earlier in the South and provided an impetus for further segregation laws. Legislative achievements won during the Reconstruction Era were erased through means of the "separate but equal" doctrine. The doctrine was further justified by a previous Supreme Court decision in 1875, which limited the federal government's ability to intervene in state affairs, only guaranteeing Congress the power "to restrain states from acts of racial discrimination and segregation". The ruling basically granted states legislative immunity when dealing with questions of race, guaranteeing the state's right to implement racially separate institutions requiring them only to be "equal". The prospect of greater state influence in matters of race worried numerous advocates of civil equalities including Supreme Court justice John Harlan who wrote in his dissent of the Plessy decision, "we shall enter upon an era of constitutional law, when the rights of freedom and American citizenship cannot receive from the nation that efficient protection which heretofore was unhesitatingly accorded to slavery and the rights of the master." Harlan's concerns about the entrenchment on the 14th Amendment would prove well founded as states benefited to institute segregation based law that would become popularized as the Jim Crow system.
The effect was immediate as noted through significant racial differences in educational funding emerging in the late 1890s that would prove enormous by the 20th century. States which had previously successfully integrated elements of their society abruptly adopted oppressive legislation that erased reconstruction era efforts. The principles of Plessy v. Ferguson were reaffirmed in Lum v. Rice (1927), which upheld the right of a Mississippi public school for white children to exclude a Chinese American girl. Despite the laws enforcing compulsory education, and the nonexistence of public schools for Chinese children in Lum's area, the Supreme Court ruled that she had the choice to attend a private school. Jim Crow laws would spread northward in response to a second wave of African American immigration and would eventually extend to segregated educational facilities, separate public institutions such as hotels and restaurants, separate beaches among other public facilities, restrictions on interracial marriage among numerous other facets of daily life. Unfortunately, the separate facilities and institutions accorded to the African American community were consistently inferior to those provided to the White community and contradicted the vague declaration of "separate but equal" institutions issued after the Plessy decision.
Jim Crow legislation related to voting would quietly disenfranchise the Southern African American by requiring of prospective voters proof of land ownership or literacy tests at poll stations. African American community leaders who had achieved brief political success during the Reconstruction era lost any gains made when their voters disappeared. Historian Rogers Smith noted on the subject "lawmakers frequently admitted, indeed boasted, that such measures as complex registration rules, literacy and property tests, poll taxes, white primaries, and grandfather clauses were designed to produce an electorate confined to a white race that declared itself supreme", notably rejecting the 14th and 15th Amendments to the American Constitution. Although many believe that the case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned Plessy, the opinion of the case clearly stated that Brown found Plessy to be inappropriate only in the area of public education.  Plessy v, Ferguson was never overturned by the Supreme Court; codified and legal segregation was banned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Plessy and Ferguson Foundation
Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, descendants of the players on both sides of the Supreme Court case, have announced the Plessy and Ferguson Foundation for Education and Reconciliation. The foundation will work to create new ways to teach the history of civil rights through film, art, and public programs designed to create understanding of this historic case and its effect on the American conscience.
Plaque at railyard site
Historians gathered with the Plessy and Ferguson families and a member of the Louisiana Supreme Court in New Orleans on February 12, 2009, to unveil a historical marker recalling the case. "It is no longer Plessy v Ferguson. It is Plessy and Ferguson", said Keith Plessy in a Public Broadcasting radio interview. The marker was placed on the corner of Press and Royal Streets, near the location of the former railway station where Plessy had boarded his train.
||This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia. (December 2012)|
- Groves, Harry E. (1951). "Separate but Equal--The Doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson". Phylon 12 (1): 66–72. doi:10.2307/272323. JSTOR 272323.
- Plessy v. Ferguson. (2010). Encyclopedia of American Studies. Retrieved 2012-12-22.(subscription required)
- Medley, Keith Weldon (2003). We As Freeman: Plessy v. Ferguson: The Fight Against Legal Segregation. Pelican Publishing Company. ISBN 978-1-58980-120-2.
- Koffi N, Maglo. "GENOMICS AND THE CONUNDRUM OF RACE: some epistemic and ethical considerations". Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved 4 October 2011.
- "Plessy v. Ferguson (No. 210)". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 4 October 2011.
- Katy Reckdahl (2009-02-11). "Plessy and Ferguson unveil plaque today marking their ancestors' actions". The Times-Picayune.
- "Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)". PBS. Retrieved 4 October 2011.
- Maidment, Richard A. "Plessy v. Ferguson Re-Examined". Journal of American Studies. 7. no. 2 (August 1973): 125–132.
- Gordon, Milton M. "Enforcing Racial Segregation: It is Viewed As Violating the Rights of All Americans". New York Times (1923–Current File) http://www.proquest.com/
- "Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (full text in one web page)". Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. Retrieved 2012-12-22.
- Bishop, David W. "Plessy v. Ferguson: A Reinterpretation". The Journal of Negro History. 62. no. 2 (April 1977): 125–133.
- "Plessy v. Ferguson – 163 U.S. 537 (1896) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center". Supreme.justia.com. Retrieved 2012-12-22.
- Fireside, Harvey. Separate and Unequal: Homer Plessy and the Supreme Court Decision That Legalized Racism. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2004.
- "Civil rights pioneer celebrated with marker" (Flash). 2009-02-10.
- Sutherland, Arthur E. "Segregation and the Supreme Court". The Atlantic Monthly, July 1954.
- Oldfield, John. 2004. "STATE POLITICS, RAILROADS, AND CIVIL RIGHTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, 1883–89". American Nineteenth Century History 5, no. 2: 71–91. America: History & Life, EBSCOhost (accessed February 1, 2010).
- Smithsonian National Museum of American History Behring Center, "Separate But Equal: The Law of the Land".
- Oldfield, John. 2004. "STATE POLITICS, RAILROADS, AND CIVIL RIGHTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, 1883–89." American Nineteenth Century History 5, no. 2: 71–91. America: History & Life, EBSCOhost (accessed February 1, 2010)
- Krock, Arthur. "In the Nation: An Historic Day in the Supreme Court Mr.Vinson Sets a Limit Facts Weighed Minutely". New York Times (1923–Current File). June 6, 1950, http://www.proquest.com/
- Klarman, Michael J., From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality (Oxford University Press USA, 2004), http://0-lib.myilibrary.com.mercury.concordia.ca/Browse/open.asp?ID=56001&loc=19 (1 February 2010)
- Nahuja, Aama (2009). "Gong Lum v. Rice". In Lomotey, Kofi. Encyclopedia of African American Education 1. SAGE. p. 291.
- White, Walter. "Decision in Plessy Case". New York Times (1923–Current File), March 10, 1954, http://www.proquest.com/
- Darden, Gary Helm. 2009. "The New Empire in the 'New South': Jim Crow in the Global Frontier of High Imperialism and Decolonization". Southern Quarterly 46, no. 3: 8–25. America: History & Life, EBSCOhost (accessed February 1, 2010).
- McWilliams, Wilson Carey. 1999. "ON ROGERS SMITH'S 'CIVIC IDEALS'". Studies in American Political Development 13, no. 1: 216–229. America: History & Life, EBSCOhost (accessed February 1, 2010).
- "A Celebration of Progress: Unveiling the long-awaited historical marker for the arrest site of Homer Plessy". New Orleans Center for Creative Arts. Archived from the original on 2009-02-21.
- Eve Abrams (2009-02-12). "Plessy/Ferguson plaque dedicated".
- Thomas, Brook (1997). Plessy v. Ferguson: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Books. ISBN 978-0-312-14997-0.
- Chin, Gabriel J. (1996). "The Plessy Myth: Justice Harlan and the Chinese Cases". Iowa Law Review 82: 151. SSRN 1121505.
- Elliott, Mark (2006). Color-Blind Justice: Albion Tourgée and the Quest for Racial Equality from the Civil War to Plessy v. Ferguson. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-518139-5.
- Fireside, Harvey (2004). Separate and Unequal: Homer Plessy and the Supreme Court Decision That Legalized Racism. New York: Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-1293-7.
- Hoffer, Williamjames Hull. Plessy v. Ferguson: Race and Inequality in Jim Crow America (University Press of Kansas; 2012) 219 pages
- Lofgren, Charles A. (1987). The Plessy Case: A Legal-Historical Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505684-6.
- Medley, Keith Weldon (2003). We As Freemen: Plessy v. Ferguson. Gretna, LA: Pelican. ISBN 1-58980-120-2. Review
- Tushnet, Mark (2008). I dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 69–80. ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6.
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Plessy v. Ferguson.|
- Text of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) is available from: Findlaw Justia LII
- Case Brief for Plessy v. Ferguson at Lawnix.com