In 1896, the Supreme Court found Plessy guilty once again. The Court’s decision was decided in favor of the defendant John H. Ferguson by a majority of 7 to 1. The decision was delivered by Justice Brown. According to Justice Brown, the Louisiana law did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment because the Thirteenth Amendment addresses the issues of slavery and involuntary servitude , which has nothing to do with segregation and the Separate Car Act.
As to the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Brown stated that this amendment enforces the equality of races before law, but that it was certainly not intended to abolish distinctions between the races. In this light, Louisiana’s law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because it provided equal standards both in the “colored” and the “white” cars. Moreover, according to Brown, laws that permit segregation do not necessarily bring up the issue of inferiority of one race to another. To support this argument, Brown gives an example concerning school segregation. According to him, schools for colored children not only provide the same opportunities, but also help enforce the political rights of the colored races.
In his opinion, Brown claims that segregation is a partly an exercise of police power, which must be reasonable. 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.
The only Justice who dissented was Justice John Harlan. In his opinion, Harlan stated that the Constitution itself does not make distinctions between the races of those it protects. Harlan also claimed that the statute of Louisiana discriminates against people of color because it was intended to exclude racial minorities from the “white” cars and not vice versa. According to Harlan, the Separate Car Act was not reasonable. To support his argument, he claimed that it would be equally reasonable to introduce laws that would require whites and colored people to use different streets or occupy different sides of the courtroom.
Harlan’s most powerful argument is that the United States Constitution does not recognize races and is, as he said, “color-blind” and, therefore, does not hold the idea of classes of citizens. For him, the Constitution grants privileges and rights to people overall, regardless their appearance, color or race and that is why he criticizes the ruling of the Court. In his critique, he claimed that it was incompetent for the state legislature to regulate or limit the enjoyment of a citizen’s freedom given to him/her by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.
Harlan’s dissenting opinion not only expressed disagreement with the majority, but also criticized them, as well as the system. He claimed that the system denied racial minorities the privileges given to them by the Constitution. He also claimed that the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson could create aggressions and feelings of distrust between minorities and whites. Moreover, Harlan claimed that the decision of the Court could make people think that it is possible, by means of state law, to limit the freedom and rights of colored people.
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”.