Plessy Vs. Ferguson Case

Words: 1132
Pages: 5

An important case dealing with civil rights was Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896). In 1892, Homer Plessy refused to give up his seat for a white man on a train in New Orleans. He was arrested due to a Louisiana law stating “no person shall be permitted to occupy seats in coaches other than the ones assigned to them, on account of the race they belong to; and requiring the officer of the passenger train to assign each passenger to the coach or compartment assigned for the race to which he or she belong”; Plessy violated a Jim Crow Law in Louisiana by not moving to the “blacks only” car. Plessy decided to fight his arrest on the basis that the Louisiana law separating blacks from whites on trains violated the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth …show more content…
Gaines attended Lincoln University which was an all black school; he applied to the University of Missouri Law School but was denied because of his race. Missouri gave Gaines the choice of attending an all-black law school that it would create or have Missouri help pay for tuition to a college in a neighboring state. Gaines rejected both, and decided to sue the state so he could attend the University of Missouri's law school. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund decided to defend Lloyd Gaines. The circuit court denied his petitions, and the Supreme Court of Missouri upheld their decisions. This case reached the U.S. Supreme Court November 9, 1938, and the Court ruled, 6-1, in his favor. The majority opinion was "equal protection clause required the state to provide, within its boundaries, a legal education for Gaines” and “Missouri failed in its constitutional duty to provide equal protection under the law by failing to provide equal access to public education within the state”. The state provided education for white students, therefore it could not send black students to school in another state. The dissenting opinion was given by Justice McReynolds and stated “education was a states’ right issue, and there can only be federal interference when there is a clear and unmistakable disregard of rights; Because the state of Missouri was prepared to pay Gaines’ tuition at an …show more content…
Sanford (1857). Dred Scott was purchased as a slave in Missouri. In 1833, Dr. John Emerson (Scott’s owner) moved Scott and his family to Illinois, a free state, for four years. Emerson returned to Missouri along with Scott and his family. Soon after, Emerson died and left all of his belongings and property to his wife. After several more years of slavery, Scott wanted freedom for himself and his family. However, Emerson’s wife refused and Scott took her to court. He argued that he was “legally free because he and his family had lived in a territory where slavery was banned”. In 1850, the state court declared Scott free. However, Scott's wages had been withheld during the trial and Sanford’s new husband was in charge of her property. He refused to pay Scott his wages. Scott then appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. The court overturned the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of Sanford on the basis of Article III of the Constitution. Scott filed yet another lawsuit in a federal circuit court against Sanford's brother for physical abuse against him. The jury ruled that Scott could not sue in federal court because he had been deemed a slave under Missouri law. Scott took a final step and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, against Dred Scott. The majority opinion was “Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in