Case study of Plessy v/s Ferguson in detail with reference to Indian Constitution and Jurisprudence. Easy to understand.

1. PLESSY V. FERGUSON
163 US 537(1896)
BY
SHRUTI MISRA
A03104420018
LLM (IP)2020-21 BATCH

2. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
STATUS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN AFTER CIVIL WAR
 Civil war ended in 1865
 13TH Amendment- There should not be any slavery or involuntary
servitude in the United States
 Institution of slavery ended but passage of 13th Amendment did not
mean that former slaves had equal rights.
 A number of former states of confederacy (Southern states) passed a
number of racially discriminatory laws immediately after the end of
slavery.
 It prevented Black Americans from participating in civil society on equal
terms with Whites.
Example- Law restricting the ability of blacks to enter and enforce
contracts, restricting the black to own property, to sit on juries, to vote to
testify in court and so forth- open discriminatory laws.
 Black codes- Southern states passed discriminatory laws

3. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
 Reconstruction period (1860-1877)- Federal government enforced socio
political rights but gave up.
 Racial discrimination was widespread in southern and northern states.
 Congress passed a number of laws that banned racial discrimination,
particularly in contracting and in housing
 14th Amendment – Granted citizenship to African Americans and defined
citizenship for future Americans. Also guaranteed equal protection.
 15th Amendment- Provided suffrage to African American males
 Jim Crow Laws- Segregation laws in the south which required blacks and
whites to be segregated

4. FACTS OF THE CASE
 In 1870, Democrats in Louisiana passed the separate car act which
required segregated rail road cards for black and white passengers.
 Eighteen prominent black activists and new Orleans united a year
later and formed a citizen committee to test the constitutionality of
the separate car act.
 The citizens committee joined forces with the east Louisiana
railroad company who opposed the law because of the cost of
buying extra railroad cars.
 Blacks Americans had no representation in congress, the citizens
committee set out to nullify the law through courts.
 In order to construct a test case, they needed someone to get
arrested – A brave individual to stand against Jim Crow.
 The Citizens Committee selected a one –eighth black named
Homer Plessy to be their plaintiff hoping his light skin would
allow him to inconspicuously enter a whites-only rail road car.

5. FACTS OF THE CASE
 On June 1892, Plessy successfully boarded the East Louisiana when the train
began moving.
 He stood and amounts to conductor that under Louisiana‘s one drop rule he was
legally black.
 Railroad company had prepared the conductor he stopped the train then a private
detective who had been hired by the citizens committee stepped onto the train and
asked Plessy to exit.
 When he refused, the detective arrested Homer Plessy.
 The citizens committee appealed to a district court claiming Plessy arrest was
unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
 Plessy lost at trial, and his conviction was affirmed on his appeal to Louisiana
Supreme court.
 Plessy then appealed to the U.S Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case.

6. ISSUE:
DOES THE SEPARATE CAR ACT VIOLATE
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT?

7. ARGUMENTS: Louisiana Court
After his arrest Homer Plessy brought in a case against the State of Louisiana in the
District Court. Homer Plessy argued that the state law which required Louisiana Railroad
to segregate trains has denied him his rights under Thirteenth and Fourteenth
amendments of the United States Constitution.
Judge John H. Ferguson, presiding over the case dismissed the unconstitutionality
argument of the Plaintiff ruled that Louisiana had the right to regulate railroad companies
while they operated within state boundaries. Plessy was convicted and sentenced to pay a
$25 fine. Homer Plessy immediately sought a writ of prohibition.
The Committee of Citizens took Plessy‘s appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana,
Justice Charles Fenner presiding over the case held that the decision of the lower court
did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of his opinion justice Fenner cited
a number of precedents: the precedent from the Massachusetts Supreme Court was used
to address the argument that segregation perpetuated race prejudice, the decision
famously stated: ―This prejudice, if it exists, is not created by law, and probably cannot
be changed by law;‖ the precedent from Pennsylvania stated: ―To assert separateness is
not to declare inferiority. . . . It is simply to say that following the order of Divine
Providence, human authority ought not to compel these widely separated races to
intermix.

8. ARGUMENTS OF PLESSY: U.S Supreme Court
PLAINTIFF
After the State Supreme Court affirmed the district court‘s ruling the U.S.
Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral arguments were heard on April 13,
1896. One month later, the court rendered its final decision in this case.
Two legal briefs were submitted on Plessy‘s behalf. One was signed by Albion W.
Tourgee and James C. Walker and the other by Samuel F. Phillips and his legal
partner F.D. McKenney.
Tourgee and Phillips appeared in courtroom on behalf of Homer Plessy (the
Petitioner), they argued that the law in question violated Thirteenth Amendment,
prohibiting slavery, and Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the same
rights to all citizens of the United States, and the equal protection of those rights
against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Attorneys claimed that the reputation of being black man was ―property‖, which,
implied inferiority of African Americans as compared to Whites.

9. ARGUMENTS OF STATE OF LOUISIANA: U.S
Supreme court
RESPONDENT
The State of Louisiana (the Respondent) argued that it is the
right of each State to make rules to protect public safety.
Segregated facilities reflected the public will in Louisiana.
Separate but equal facilities provided the protections
required by the 14th Amendment and satisfied the demands
of white citizens as well. They also argued that because
the Civil rights cases of 1883 made clear that segregation in
private matters does not concern the government, a state
legislature shouldn‘t be prohibited from enacting public
segregation statutes.

10. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL PRINCIPLE
The "separate but equal" standard established by the Supreme Court
in Plessy has become more or less synonymous with institutionalized
racial segregation.
According to the "separate but equal" doctrine, if a state could prove that
blacks enjoyed accommodations equal to those for whites, that state could
legally sanction segregated schools and other public facilities, as was the
case in most of the South.
The very fact that facilities were separate meant that they were inherently
unequal, since the whole purpose of the so-called Jim Crow Laws in the
South was to keep black people out of the places enjoyed by whites. But
beyond this logical fallacy, in practice the facilities were simply unequal:
thus for instance most black schools were housed in sub-standard
buildings, and African American students used outdated textbooks.

11. DECISION
• In a 7:1 decision, the SC ruled in favour of Ferguson.
• The majority rejected Plessy‘s 13th and 14th amendment arguments,
instead putting its stamp of approval on the doctrine of ― separate but
equal‖
• Dissent written by Justice Marshall Harlan, disagreed, arguing that
segregationist laws indoctrinate society with the belief that the two
races are not equal.
• The Court ruled that, while the object of the Fourteenth Amendment
was to create "absolute equality of the two races before the law," such
equality extended only so far as political and civil rights (e.g., voting
and serving on juries), not "social rights" (e.g., sitting in a railway car
one chooses). As Justice Henry Brown's opinion put it, "if one race be
inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States
cannot put them upon the same plane." Furthermore, the Court held
that the Thirteenth Amendment applied only to the imposition of
slavery itself.

12. MAJORITY JUDGEMENT
Justice Henry Brown wrote the majority opinion, which rejected Plessy‘s argument that the Louisiana law
conflicted with the 13th Amendment, deeming the point ―too clear for argument.‖ The justices then
considered whether the law conflicted with the 14th Amendment. They identified the purpose of the 14th
Amendment as ―enforce[ing] the absolute equality of the two races before the law,‖ but then asserted that ―it
could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social…equality.‖
According to the Court, the 14th Amendment was only concerned with legal, not social, equality.
In addition, the justices denied the argument that separation of the races by law ―stamps the colored race
with a badge of inferiority.‖ They argued instead that racial prejudice could not be overcome by ―an
enforced commingling of the two races.‖ According to this argument, outlawing segregation would not
eliminate racial prejudice, because such societal beliefs could not be changed simply by changing the law.
The Court concluded that ―if one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution … cannot put them
upon the same plane.‖
The justices explained that because the Louisiana law did not conflict with the purpose of the 14th
Amendment, the only remaining question was whether it was ―reasonable, and … enacted in good faith for
the promotion for the public good.‖ Giving much deference to the state legislature of Louisiana, they
determined that the law met this requirement because it furthered ―the preservation of the public peace and
good order.‖ Thus, so long as separate facilities were actually qualitatively equal, the Constitution did not
prohibit segregation in the view of the majority of the Court.

13. DISSENTING JUDGEMENT: JUSTICE JOHN
MARSHALL
Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented from the majority opinion. In an
opinion that later became pivotal in the Brown v. Board of
Education cases (1954), he argued that segregationist legislation, like the
Louisiana law in this case, was based on the assumption that ―colored
citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in
public coaches occupied by white citizens.‖ These laws promoted and
perpetuated the belief that African Americans were inferior to whites,
according to Justice Harlan. They must be struck down, he argued,
because the government could not ―permit the seeds of race hate to be
planted under the sanction of law.‖ Justice Harlan believed that the
constitution must be ―color-blind,‖ and that it could allow ―no superior,
dominant ruling class of citizens.‖ Because segregation had the effect of
creating such classes, he judged, it was unconstitutional.

14. HELD
The seven-to-one majority opinion was authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown,
justice Brewer did not participate.
The court held that Louisiana‘s law did not violate either the Thirteenth or
Fourteenth Amendments.
According to the court the Thirteenth Amendment applied only to slavery and the
Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to give African Americans social
equality but only political and civil equality with white people. This line of
reasoning will predominate political debate and court opinions for the next sixty
years.
In the majority decision justice Brown wrote that: ―Legislation is powerless to
eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical
differences.‖ In other words, legislation cannot change public attitudes, ―and
attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present
situation.‖ Reflecting the common bias of the majority of the country at the time,
Brown argued ―if the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot
be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other
socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same
plane‖. The court declared that Louisiana law was a reasonable exercise of the
State‘s ―police power,‖ enacted for the promotion of the public good.

15. LINK WITH JURISPRUDENCE: ARISTOTLE
The meaning of equality in law nearly everywhere descends in a direct line
from Aristotle's dictum that equality means treating likes alike, unlikes
unalike. As developed through the Enlightenment, this conception revolves
around sameness and difference.
When people are seen to be relevantly the same but are not treated the same,
their treatment is considered unreasonable and arbitrary and is prohibited by
law as unequal under the ―likes alike‖ imperative. When they are seen to be
different, they can be treated differently—unlikes unalike; that, too, is
considered to be equality.
This standard, termed formal equality, is traditionally regarded as fair,
objective, and neutral as well as socially progressive. It is, in a sense,
empirical: law is to reflect reality.
The problem it seeks to solve is misclassification. People within a
classification are to be the same as one another; people in different
classifications are to be different from one another. Equality consists in treating
people the same who are accurately classified as similar, differently who are
accurately classified as different.

16. LINK WITH JURISPRUDENCE: ARISTOTLE
In mainstream equality theory, discrimination is treating someone who has the
same rank, status, or qualities as if they were not the same as others of that
group. But if someone is not already of that group, they are not relevantly the
same as others in it and can be treated less well, and that is not seen as
unreasonable or arbitrary.
It is just treating them as who they are. Given that socially imposed inferiority
has real consequences or it would be harmless, how arbitrary is it, ultimately, to
treat someone who has been deprived of educational advantages as less
educated? This equality approach can thus map itself onto existing social
hierarchies, ratifying rather than challenging them.
In this light, it makes perfect sense that formal equality could justify racial
segregation, as it did under the equal protection clause in the United States. It
drew lines of difference where society drew them. All who were racially alike
were treated alike—in separate railway cars.

17. PLESSY V/S FERGUSSON SIGNIFICANCE
The Plessy v. Ferguson verdict enshrined the doctrine of ―separate but equal‖ as a constitutional justification for
segregation, ensuring the survival of the Jim Crow South for the next half-century.
Intrastate railroads were among many segregated public facilities the verdict sanctioned; others included buses,
hotels, theaters, swimming pools and schools. By the time of the 1899 case Cummings v. Board of Education, even
Harlan appeared to agree that segregated public schools did not violate the Constitution.
It would not be until the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, at the dawn of the civil rights
movement, that the majority of the Supreme Court would essentially concur with Harlan‘s opinion in Plessy v.
Ferguson..
Writing the majority opinion in that 1954 case, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that ―the doctrine of ‗separate but
equal‘ has no place‖ in public education, calling segregated schools ―inherently unequal,‖ and declaring that the
plaintiffs in the Brown case were being ―deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment.‖

18. BROWN V/S BOARD OF EDUCATION
347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686 (1954)
RULE:
In the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently uneq
Therefore, segregation is a deprivation of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
FACTS:
Four African-American minors sought admission to the public schools of their community on a non-segregated basis. All minors were den
admission to schools attended by Caucasian children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. Each district court den
relief to the minors on the "separate but equal" doctrine. The case was elevated on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
ISSUE:
Is segregation in schools a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
ANSWER:
yes
CONCLUSION:
The Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and the "separate but equal" doctrine, finding that it had no place in public education. Sepa
educational facilities were inherently unequal and has a detrimental effect upon the African-American children. The Court held that to sepa
them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generated a feeling of inferiority as to their status in
community. Segregation also had the tendency to retard the educational and mental development of African-American children and to depr
them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system. As a result, segregation is a denial of the equal protect
of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

19. ARTICLE 14 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution (intelligible differentia and the object sought to be achieved)
Equality is one the magnificent corner stones of the Indian Democracy. Article 14 guarantees to every person the right to
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. The first expression is a declaration of equality of all persons within
territory of India, implying thereby the absence of any privilege in favour of any individual. The second one directs that equal
protection shall be secured to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the union in the enjoyment of their rights and
privileges without favouritism or discrimination. The guiding principle of this Article is that all persons and things similarly
circumstanced shall be treated alike both in respect of privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equality before the law,
means that amongst equals should be equal and equally administered and that like should be treated alike. Hence what it
forbids is discrimination between persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. It does not forbid
different treatment of unequals. The rule is rather that like should be treated alike and that unlike should be treated differently.
There must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to achieved.
The expression ―intelligible differentia‖ means difference capable of being understood. A factor that distinguishes or in
different state or class from another which is capable of being understood. The impugned act deals with users of social
networking websites Test laid down in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar i.e. the differentia or classification must have
a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. Supreme Court in many of its judgment has
clearly indicated about such kinds of classifications as vague and inoperative. The Supreme Court in landmark judgment of
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India clearly ruled out the room for arbitrariness. ‗Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action
and ensures fairness and equality of treatment