Plessy v. Ferguson

Who and when

(1896) Plessy is petitioner | Ferguson is respondent Plessy is plaintiff | Ferguson is defendant

what did Plessy v. Ferguson usher in?

- *Plessy "ushered in full-scale segregation in the southern and border states*. According to the Court, separation did not constitute inequality under the Fourteenth Amendment; if the facilities and opportunities were somewhat similar, the equal protection clause permitted the separation of the race - "Encouraged by the ruling, the legislatures of the South passed a wide variety of statutes to keep blacks segregated from the white population

REASONING (4)

1. "*Social inequality" isn't the government's fault:* 2. States' rights for intrastate commerce matters: It's within the state's police powers to *regulate intrastate commerce.* 3. Separate facilities are still equal: "separate but equal" is inherently equal. It is a *"reasonable regulation" to separate passengers solely on the basis of race, as long as accommodations are equal* in quality and convenience and the same prices is charged. 4. No discrimination: There is *no discrimination based on race.* Individuals of both races equally are required to ride in cars assigned to them. The cars were equal in quality of accommodations.

Issue

Does The 1890 Louisiana segregation law violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Case facts

Homer Plessy intentionally decided to board a white train in New Orleans to challenge the 1890 Louisiana statute ordering the separation of the races on all railroads. 2. *Plessy was only one-eighth black.* 3. He was a member of the Citizens Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law. 4. He bought a first-class rail ticket from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana. *This was an intrastate train ride.* 5. He was arrested for violating the statute, taken off the train, and held in a New Orleans jail to await trial. 6. His attorney Tourgée moved to block the trial on the ground that the segregation law was in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 13th and 14th Amendments.

Rule for governmental policies/actions that legally mandate the segregation of the races:

If such a government policy or action segregating the races is not a *"reasonable regulation"* *AND/OR fails to treat both races as "separate but equal,"* ... then the government policy or action is unconstitutional and violates the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment.

HOLDING

No, the Louisiana law mandating segregation of train cars does not violate the 14th Amendment equal protection clause and is constitutional.

WHAT APPROACH TO CIVIL LIBERTIES/RIGHTS DID THE COURT TAKE IN THIS CASE?

Segregationist

JUDGMENT

The Court rules in favor of segregation

DID THE COURT RULE IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT OR THE INDIVIDUAL?

The government.

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?

Whether an 1890 Louisiana statute ordering the separation of the races on all railroads violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

race based classifications... gender-based classifications... all other classifications...

race based = strict scrutiny gender-based = intermediate scrutiny all other = mere rational