Facts of the Case
Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Plessy – who was seven-eighths Caucasian – agreed to participate in a test to challenge the Act. He was solicited by the Comite des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), a group of New Orleans residents who sought to repeal the Act. They asked Plessy, who was technically black under Louisiana law, to sit in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train.
The railroad cooperated because it thought the Act imposed unnecessary costs via the purchase of additional railroad cars. When Plessy was told to vacate the whites-only car, he refused and was arrested.
At trial, Plessy’s lawyers argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The judge found that Louisiana could enforce this law insofar as it affected railroads within its boundaries. Plessy was convicted.
Questions
Does the Separate Car Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusions
-
The Court held that the state law was constitutional. In an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, the majority upheld state-imposed racial segregation. Justice Brown conceded that the 14th Amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law, but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans. In short, segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination. In dissent, John Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution was color-blind and that the United States had no class system. Accordingly, all citizens should have equal access to civil rights.
Should the Supreme Court Take Note of “Th’ Iliction Returns” Next Time It Addresses Race-Preferential Admissions Policies?
Federalist Society Review, Volume 22
“[N]o matter whether th’ constitution follows th’ flag or not, th’ Supreme Court follows th’...
Civility, Courage, Humility: Lessons in Life and Law From a Justice
Federalist Society Review, Volume 20
A review of A Republic, If You Can Keep It, by Neil Gorsuch, https://www.amazon.com/Republic-If-You-Can-Keep/dp/0525576789/. ...
When Enforcing the Constitution Means Rejecting Precedent: A Reply to Greg Weiner
Part bull, part man, and nourished by Athenian blood, the minotaur has been the stuff...
Administrative Law and Judicial Duty: Justice Thomas' Principled Stand Against Arbitrary Power
Few constitutional scholars would deny that the Supreme Court has made tragic—even shameful—errors in interpreting...
Supremacy and the Supreme Court
Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, it’s been “settled law” that the Supreme Court is...
The Separation of Powers, "Stare Decisis," and the Constitution
Because the U.S. Constitution is dedicated to liberty through limited government, power is divided between...
Illuminating Citizens United: What the Decision Really Did
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of its most controversial decisions in...
The Sotomayor Nomination, Part I
Online Debate
On May 26, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter as an Associate...
Wall Street Journal Op-ed by Steven G. Calabresi
Mr. Calabresi is a cofounder of the Federalist Society, a professor of law at Northwestern...
SCOTUS term
Online Debate
On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down its last decisions of the Spring...
The Great Debate: Attorney General Ed Meese III - November 15, 1985
Speech by Attorney General Edwin Meese, III before The Federalist Society Lawyers Division on November 15, 1985
Attorney General Edwin Meese III Before the DC Chapter of the Federalist Society Lawyers Division...
Is Common Carrier the Solution to Social-Media Censorship?
A Regulatory Transparency Project Webinar
Zoom Webinar
2019 National Lawyers Convention
Originalism
The Mayflower Hotel1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036