Homer Plessy, a 1/8th black man who intentionally sat in a “whites-only” rail car on the East Louisiana Railroad train, refused to move to the “blacks-only” rail car. Upon refusal, he was subsequently arrested under the Separate Car Act, passed by Louisiana in 1890. Plessy litigated against John Howard Ferguson, under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Upon losing in the lower court, Plessy appealed to the Supreme Court. Plessy v Ferguson (1896), a landmark Supreme Court decision dealing with states’ rights, and whether or not they have the authority to make laws that publically segregate blacks from whites, ruled 7-1 in favor of Ferguson. The Court ruled that, because the Louisiana law was within state boundaries and because both of the cars were of equal quality, there was no violation of Plessy’s 14th amendment rights. The Supreme Court held that the 14th only made blacks as equal as whites, and had not made reference to segregation. As long as the segregation was equal, nothing had been violated. This case established the infamous separate-but-equal doctrine, fundamentally legalizing segregation.
The majority opinion, held by justices Brown, Field, Gray, Shiras, White, Peckham, and joined by Fuller, …show more content…
Plessy, who was one eighth black, was chosen to be the one entering the cart because he looked white, so his light skin would demonstrate the arbitrariness—and therefore, the unconstitutionality—of the segregation law. The point raised by Plessy’s counsel, that Plessy was only one-eighth black and looked white, was contemporarily relevant. After arguing the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, and having it prove to be ineffective, Plessy’s counsel used Plessy’s light skin to show the ambiguousness and insignificance of color, and how it cannot effectively legitimize segregation. This effort also proved to be