Which Supreme Court Case Ruled That the Doctrine of Separate but Equal Was Unconstitutional

But the verdict did much more than that. This gave impetus to a nascent civil rights movement that would write much of American history over the next few decades. In October 1986, the revived Brown was tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Six months later, the plaintiffs appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals when the district court ruled that there was insufficient evidence of deliberate discrimination. In the late 1800s, many states of the former Confederacy passed laws, collectively known as Jim Crow laws, that enforced the segregation of whites and African Americans. The Florida Constitution of 1885 and the Constitution of West Virginia prescribed separate education systems. In Texas, laws required separate water fountains, restrooms, and waiting rooms at train stations. [14] In Georgia, restaurants and taverns could not serve white, “colored” guests in the same room; Separate parks were needed for each “race,” as were separate cemeteries. [15] These are just examples from various similar statutes.

In Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, NAACP lawyers referred to the phrase “equal but separate” in Plessy v. Ferguson, was adopted as a de jure habit of racial segregation. The NAACP, led by Thurgood Marshall (who became the first black justice on the Supreme Court in 1967), successfully challenged the constitutional viability of the doctrine of “separate but equal.” The Warren Court voted to repeal sixty years of the law that had developed under Plessy. The Warren Court banned separate public educational facilities for blacks and whites at the state level. The related case of Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 have prohibited such practices at the federal level in the District of Columbia. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the court`s opinion,[22][24] Blacks in the South saw the promise of equality before the law embodied in the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, and 15th Amendment to the Constitution rapidly recede and a return to disenfranchisement and other disadvantages as white supremacy reasserted itself in the South. In subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court decided to further accelerate the desegregation process. In Milliken v.

Bradley, the court concluded that even if a county`s current practices could meet court standards, the court could force a county to establish remedial programs to fill educational gaps resulting from past behaviors. In 1990, in Missouri v. Jenkins, the court ruled that federal courts could even order local counties to raise taxes to fund these remedial programs. Despite the “separate but equal” pretext, non-whites have essentially always received inferior facilities and treatments, if any. [41] [page needed] Emboldened by its victory in the Gaines case, the NAACP continued to address legally sanctioned racial discrimination in higher education. In 1946, an African-American named Heman Sweat applied to the “white” law school at the University of Texas. Hoping that Sweat wouldn`t have to go after the “white” law school if there was already a “black” school, the state hastily set up an underfunded “black” law school elsewhere on the university`s campus. At this point, Sweat enlisted the services of Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and sued for admission to the university`s “white” law school. He argued that the education he received at “black” law school was not of the same academic calibre as the education he would receive if he attended a “white” law school. When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1950, the court unanimously agreed, citing glaring discrepancies between the university`s law school (the School for Whites) and the hastily created school for blacks.

In other words, the “black” law school was “separate” but not “equal.” As in Murray, the court concluded that the only appropriate remedy for this situation was to admit Sweat to the university`s law school. Undeterred, the committee appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. [16] Two pleadings were filed on behalf of Plessy. One was signed by Albion W. Tourgée and James C. Walker and the other by Samuel F. Phillips and his associate F. D. McKenney. The hearing took place on April 13, 1896 before the Supreme Court.

Tourgée and Phillips appeared in the courtroom to speak on Plessy`s behalf. [14] Tourgée based his case on the violation of Plessy`s rights under the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery, and the 14th Amendment. Amendment stating: “No State shall enact or enforce any law limiting the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor may any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process; deny or deny to a person within its jurisdiction the same protection of the law. Tourgée argued that the reputation of being a black man was “property,” which, by law, implied the inferiority of African Americans to whites. [24] The state`s legal brief was prepared by Attorney General Milton Joseph Cunningham of Natchitoches and New Orleans. Cunningham was a staunch supporter of white supremacy who, according to a 1916 glowing obituary, “worked so effectively [during Reconstruction] to restore white supremacy in politics that he was eventually arrested along with fifty-one other men of that community and tried by federal officials.” [25] 1960 U.S. Census data show that the largest concentration of Topeka`s black population with school-aged children lived halfway between Topeka High and Highland Park. A simple change in the visitor limit during the annexation of Highland Park would have increased minority registrations to 50%. It would also have alleviated overcrowding at Topeka High, as Highland Park had 497 empty seats.

Instead, the Topeka School Board decided to build a third high school (Topeka West) at the western end of the growing city, assigning it 2 black children and 702 white children. The white race considers itself the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievement, in education, in wealth and in power. But given the constitution, in the eyes of the law, there is no upper, dominant and ruling class of citizens in this country. There is no caste here. Our constitution is colorblind and does not know or tolerate classes among citizens. In terms of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the mightiest. The law considers man as a human being and has no regard for his environment or the color of his skin when it comes to his civil rights, as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land. Plessy asked the State District Criminal Court to dismiss State v. Homer Adolph Plessy[15] on the grounds that state law requiring the East Louisiana Railroad to separate trains had denied him his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,[16] which provided for equal treatment before the law. However, the judge who presided over his case, John Howard Ferguson, ruled that Louisiana had the right to regulate railroads while operating within the state`s borders.

Four days later, Plessy asked the Louisiana Supreme Court for a ban on stopping his criminal case. [14] [17] Since these are class actions, because of the broad applicability of this decision and the great diversity of local circumstances, the wording of the decrees in these cases raises issues of considerable complexity. In the renewed argument, consideration of appropriate facilities was necessarily subordinated to the main issue – the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now proclaimed that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the law. In order for us to have the full support of the parties in the development of the decrees, the cases will be put back on the agenda and the parties will be invited to present new arguments on questions 4 and 5 previously proposed by the Court for the new pleading of this mandate. The Attorney General of the United States is again invited to participate. State Attorneys General which require or authorize segregation in public education may, on request, also act as amici curiae until September 15, 1954, and file briefs until October 1, 1954. The court transcript of the Graham case illustrates the differences between separate elementary schools and junior high schools. When the applicant, who had just completed grade six, tried to enroll in Boswell Junior High School, he was denied admission because of his race. He filed a lawsuit, claiming that the course offered at Buchanan Elementary was not the same as that offered at Boswell Junior High. Boswell was a new facility and was built for the express purpose of being a college.