• 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)

    are significantly different from those of the earlier o0ne then the judge can distinguish the two cases and need not follow the earlier one. (Overruling; in a later and separate case a higher court (or the House of lords) decides a similar matter on the basis of a different legal principal.

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

    Further, even if a reasonable man is not expected to know, he may be rewuired to get and follow expert advice. Haseldine v Daw & Son ltd14, it was said that a landlord of flats must therefore consult a specialist engineer about the safety o his lift.

  1. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    Subsequently, the accounts became badly overdrawn, and the bank dishonored a number of their checks. The Kendalls brought suit against United California Bank, charging that wrongful dishonor of checks that the bank had originally agreed to accept as overdrafts damaged the Kendalls' personal reputation and their credit rating.

  2. Property, Liberty, and the Law

    We have already established the need for protection of property, but it needs to be reiterated in the context of a professional opinion. Rose once again contributes her thoughts. "'First in time, first in right' may work well enough in a community where everyone knows all about everyone's else's transactions, but outside that context, the (-7-)

  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. Is Nuclear Power the Answer for the Future?

    to release a vast amount of energy through the process of controlled atom splitting in nuclear reactors. Nuclear power has been the most controversial of all energy sources. Public concerns about reactor safety and environmental issues were especially heightened by the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and


    Objections are often based on assumptions about the personalities, attitudes and believes of potential jurors which legal professionals think they influence their judgment about the defendant. Lawyers, in common with many other people, tend to rely on implicit personality theories and cultural stereotypes in order to form their impressions of others.

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

    Keegstra, James Keegstra, an Albertan high school teacher, taught his history students that the Jewish holocaust was also a conspiracy. In this case, Alberta Court along with the Court of Appeal, ruled that the violations were not reasonable and justified under s.1 of the Charter.

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