plessy v. Ferguson
Year: 1896
Result: 7-1, favor Ferguson
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil rights
Significance/precedent: The Supreme Court upheld state-imposed segregation by the separate-but-equal doctrine. The Court ruled that the 14th Amendment called for absolute equality of races before the law, but did not mean to do away with distinctions based on skin color. Unlawful discrimination does not come specifically from segregation.
Quote from majority opinion: “The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power.”
Summary of dissent: Citizens rights should not be affected in any way based on race. Segregation is inconsistent with the "color-blind" Constitution. People won't be fooled by the "equal" accommodations that are theoretically provided for either race.
6-word summary: Court upheld segregation: "separate but equal"
Result: 7-1, favor Ferguson
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil rights
Significance/precedent: The Supreme Court upheld state-imposed segregation by the separate-but-equal doctrine. The Court ruled that the 14th Amendment called for absolute equality of races before the law, but did not mean to do away with distinctions based on skin color. Unlawful discrimination does not come specifically from segregation.
Quote from majority opinion: “The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power.”
Summary of dissent: Citizens rights should not be affected in any way based on race. Segregation is inconsistent with the "color-blind" Constitution. People won't be fooled by the "equal" accommodations that are theoretically provided for either race.
6-word summary: Court upheld segregation: "separate but equal"