• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Plessy v. Ferguson.

Extracts from this document...


Plessy v. Ferguson The Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson arose due to the introduction of the so-called, "Jim Crow" laws, which required that the railway provide separate, but equal accommodations for whites and people of the "colored" races. This kind of law was first introduced in Florida in 1879, but was soon adopted in other southern states. This law was also introduced in Louisiana, where it was challenged by Homer Plessy. Plessy was only one-eighth black, but he was still considered "colored" and therefore was not allowed to sit in the "white's" car. He refused to sit in the "Colored Only" car and was arrested and then tried in the lower courts by Judge John Howard Ferguson, who found him guilty. Then, Plessy appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, but the Court agreed with Ferguson's decision. After that, the case was taken to the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. ...read more.


According to him, laws promoting segregation should be made in good faith and for the good of the society. This brought up the question of whether the Separate Car Act is a reasonable exercise of power. The reasonability of regulations should, according to Brown, be justified by customs, traditions, promotion of security and comfort and the maintenance of public peace. According to the majority opinion, Louisiana's law concerning separate accommodations for people of color and white people is reasonable because it serves to maintain the standards described above. Moreover, the Court rejected the plaintiff's assumption that the segregation of races implies the inferiority of the people of color. In his opinion, Justice Brown, called this assumption a fallacy, saying that no mention of inferiority can be found in the Separate Car Act and that the idea of inferiority itself is only the invention of the colored race. He also expressed his belief that the notion of inferiority can only eradicate with time by social interaction between the races and that legislation cannot help this process. ...read more.


Justice Harlan also claimed that the government should not allow hate and racism to be planted in law and that is why he opposed Louisiana's Separate Car Law. He disagreed with the majority opinion, claiming that Louisiana's law implies the notion of inferiority of the "colored" people. In concluding his opinion, Justice Harlan stated that the Lousiana's statute contradicts the Constitutional guarantees of freedom and personal liberty and, therefore, Louisiana's statute is unconstitutional. The Plessy v. Ferguson decision turned out to be very important because it produced legal principle for future cases. This decision created a precedent that segregation was constitutional as long as it gave equal opportunities to whites and minorities. The Plessy v. Ferguson decision created a doctrine that is usually referred to as "separate but equal." Later, this doctrine was adapted to many other areas of public activities such as theaters, restaurants and even restrooms. This precedent was not overturned until Brown v. Board of Education, when the Supreme Court ruled that "separate is inherently not equal". ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Judicial precedent.

    3 star(s)

    (Flexibility - i.e. a general Ratio Decidendii can be extended to various fact situations e.g. the test for negligence in Donohue V Stevenson relating to the reliability of the manufacturer of ginger beer has now been extended to every claim in negligence.

  2. Study the concept of Reasonable man and reasonability in tort law.

    When the question what knowledge of facts and circumstances surrounding him must the defendant have, he will not be excused for failing to observe what a reasonable man would have observed. In the Mersey Docks Trustees v Gibbs13, a dock authority who did not know but ought to have known that he dock was unsafe was negligent.

  1. Worlds Apart: Orientalism, Antifeminism, and Heresy in Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale

    them: they are presented as pagan or heathen traders who have arrived in Rome. Trevet identifies their origin as the great Saracenland, wherever that vague region might be ("marchauntz paens hors de la graunde sarazine," Chron. 5), while Genius specifies their homeland as "Barbarie" (CA 2.599), and both narrators maintain an emphasis upon the foreignness of the newcomers.

  2. Justices of the Peace - Magistrates Courts

    Role of the jury The jury's role, once it has been selected and sworn, is to act as judge of fact. Sometimes there is a direct conflict of evidence - P claims that D struck him and D denies it - and the jury must then use their experience of human nature in deciding which to believe.

  1. Lay People

    they tend to have real jobs as well as being a lay Magistrate. The magistrates courts take the strain off the crown court freeing up funds to be used on more important cases. They tend to get through the minor cases a lot faster than other courts and there are

  2. The Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter: Democratic or Anti-Democratic?

    to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Although the law's decision is justified in the Charter, it is still proving the rights of the parents were ignored, and their individual rights of freedom and expression of religion were not considered in the case.

  1. Is Nuclear Power the Answer for the Future?

    the much more serious accident in 1986 at Chernobyl in Ukraine (http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-countries-with-nuclear-weapons). These two incidents played a major part in the shut down of many plants in Britain as the power was deemed unsafe. But now we have diagnosed a major climatic, non-nuclear problem on Earth, and have more advanced

  2. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    This operates as a discharge of the instrument and is known as cancellation. Cancellation may also take place by physical destruction of the instrument itself made with the intention io terminate liability, or by crossing out signatures on the instrument.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work