Segregation

A supreme court case called Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), and a supreme court case Brown v. Topea Board of Education because Brown overturned Plessy

In 1986, the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case established that there could be separate but equal facilities for blacks and whites, giving support to Jim Crow laws. The Supreme Court did not begin to reverse Plessy until the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case 58 years later, which established that segregating blacks and whites was unconstitutional and that separate could never be equal.

After the period of reconstruction following the Civil War, many states in the south and other regions of the country passed laws that discriminated against African-Americans. These laws ranged from restrictions on voting to requirements that blacks and whites use separate facilities and attend separate schools.

On June 7, 1892, Homer A. Plessy, a man who was one-eighth black and seven-eighths white, bought a train ticket to travel from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana. Under Louisiana law, he was considered black and was required to ride in the "colored" car. Because Plessy sat in the "whites only" car, he was arrested and put in jail in New Orleans (Frost-Knappman).

Plessy faced trial for his crime of riding in a railroad car for whites only. John A. Ferguson presided over his trial in federal district court. He was found guilty, and the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Plessy then appealed to the United States Supreme Court for an order forbidding Louisiana-in the person of Judge Ferguson-from carrying out his conviction (Frost-Knappman).

On April 13, 1896, Plessy's lawyers argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Their argument was that Louisiana had violated Plessy's 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law (Cozzens). Attorney General Cunningham argued that the law merely made a distinction between blacks and whites and did not necessarily treat blacks as inferiors (Cozzens).

On May 18, 1896, the court issued its decision, upholding the Louisiana law:

A [law] which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long a white men are distinguished from the other race by color--has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races (Frost-Knappman).

The court also endorsed the "separate but equal" doctrine, ignoring the fact that blacks had almost no control over how "equal" ...