Plessy V. Ferguson Case Brief Summary

Words: 779
Pages: 4

Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Facts of the case Homer Plessy purchased a first-class ticket for the East Louisiana Railway. Plessy chose to sit in a white only section of the train. After refusing orders from the conductor, Plessy was removed and arrested for violation of state segregation laws. Louisiana state legislature stated that “all railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this state, shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored races,” and that “any passenger insisting on going into a coach or compartment to which by race he does not belong, shall be liable to a fine of twenty-five dollars, or in lieu thereof to imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty days in the
…show more content…
Justice Brown reasoned that the Separate Car Act was not found to violate the 13th Amendment. The Separate Car Act did not reestablish slavery, more so put the limitation on the transportation of railways in Louisiana. Brown reached his opinion with the help of the precedent created by the civil rights cases. The Civil Rights Cases held that racial discrimination in places of public “imposes no badge of slavery or involuntary servitude…but at most, infringes rights which are protected from State aggression by the 14th Amendment. Brown, then affirms, that the 14th Amendment was created to protect the legal equality of whites and blacks rather than their social equality. He points out that legal equality was assured through the separate but equal accommodations by the railways. Brown further acknowledges the multiple state court rulings that ruled for separate public schools for white and black children. Plessy argued a figurative situation where African Americans had to walk on different sides of the street than whites or where they had to live in differently colored houses. Brown replied that the Separate Car Act was intended to protect the public peace and was a proper execution of the State police powers, rather than doing harm the Act ensured good