In 1949, the University of Oklahoma accepted George McLaurin, an African-American, into its doctoral program. However, this required him to sit separately from the rest of his class, eat at a separate time and at another table of white students, etc. McLaurin, who explained that these actions were both unusual and had negative effects on his academic activities, sued to stop the practice. McLaurin hired Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund to plead his case, a case that eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In an opinion issued on the same day as the Sweat decision, the court found that the university`s actions with respect to McLaurin affected his ability to learn and ordered that they be dropped immediately. In May 1896, the Supreme Court issued a 7-1 decision against Plessy, ruling that the Louisiana law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States. Constitution and stated that although the Fourteenth Amendment established the legal equality of whites and blacks, it did not and could not require the elimination of all “race-based distinctions.” The court rejected arguments by Plessy`s lawyers that the Louisiana law inherently implied blacks were inferior and gave great credence to the inherent power of U.S. lawmakers to enact laws regulating health, safety, and morality—the “police power”—and to determine the appropriateness of the laws they passed. Justice John Marshall Harlan was the only disagreement with the court`s decision, writing that the U.S. Constitution is “colorblind and does not know or tolerate classes among citizens,” and therefore the distinction of the law between passenger races should have been ruled unconstitutional. One of the drawbacks of Brown I was that the decision itself contained no direction, procedure or safeguards to end segregation. To address this issue, the Supreme Court issued the decision in “Brown II,” which came a year after Brown I, but there weren`t many guidelines either, it only ordered states to end segregation “expeditiously.” When the Supreme Court justices met to decide the case, they realized that they were deeply divided on the issues raised.
While most wanted to overthrow Plessy and declare segregation in public schools unconstitutional, they had various reasons for doing so. Unable to find a solution before June 1953 (the end of the Court`s mandate 1952-1953), the Tribunal decided to reconsider the case in December 1953. Meanwhile, Chief Justice Fred Vinson passed away and was replaced by Governor Earl Warren of California. After the case was heard again in 1953, Chief Justice Warren was able to do something his predecessor had failed to do, and that was get all justices to accept a unanimous decision declaring segregation in public schools unconstitutional. On May 14, 1954, he delivered the opinion of the Tribunal and stated: “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of `separate but equal` has no place. Segregated educational institutions are inherently unequal. The implementation of the “separate but equal” doctrine gave constitutional sanction to laws designed to achieve racial segregation through separate and equal public institutions and services for African Americans and whites. Only “nurses caring for children of a different race” are exempt from the application of the law. No exceptions are colored companions traveling with adults. A white man is not allowed to have his colored servant with him in the same chariot, even if his state of health requires the constant personal help of such a servant. If a black maid insists on getting into the same car as a white woman she was hired for and who needs her personal attention when she travels, she will be punished or imprisoned for such a show of zeal in the performance of her duty. In 1883, the Supreme Court struck down the 1875 law, ruling that the 14th Amendment gave Congress no authority to prevent discrimination against individuals.
Victims of racial discrimination were asked to contact the states rather than the federal government. At the same time, state governments have passed laws codifying racial inequality. Laws mandating separate schools for children of all races are the most common; However, segregation was soon extended to most public and semi-public institutions through Jim Crow laws. The Supreme Court first heard arguments in December 1952, but due to the controversial nature of the case and the expected resistance from the Southern states, no decision was made. The justices requested that the case be reheard in the fall of 1953, paying particular attention to whether the Fourteenth Amendment`s equality clause prohibits the operation of separate public schools for whites and blacks. The State of Louisiana (the respondent) argued that each state had the right to adopt rules to protect public safety. Segregated settlements reflected the will of the public in Louisiana. Separate but equal facilities provided the protections required by the Fourteenth Amendment and also met the demands of white citizens. They also argued that because the civil rights cases of 1883 made it clear that segregation in private affairs did not affect government, a state legislature should not be prohibited from enacting public segregation laws. The Supreme Court`s decision upheld a Louisiana state law that allowed “equal but separate accommodations for white and colored races.” The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Brown, upheld the Louisiana law, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was designed to uphold political equality between blacks and whites, but was not intended to eliminate social inequality. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment did not cover segregation and states could legitimately exercise their police power to enforce public order segregation.
The court also found that the state law itself was not based on the assumption of blackness or stigmatized blacks with second-class status; On the contrary, “the colored race decides to put this construction in it.” The case arose out of the incident in 1892, when Homer Plessy (seven-eighths white and one-eighth black) bought a train ticket to travel to Louisiana and boarded a car reserved for white passengers. After refusing to get into a car for African Americans, he was arrested and charged with violating the Louisiana Separate Car Act. The Brown case was actually a combination of five cases involving segregation in public schools in Kansas, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina and the District of Columbia. Oliver Brown, the father of lead plaintiff Linda Brown, filed a lawsuit on her behalf after Linda was denied admission to an all-white public school in Topeka, Kansas. The Plessy & Ferguson Foundation states that Homer Plessy`s arrest in 1892 was part of an effort organized by the Citizens` Committee to challenge Louisiana`s Separate Car Act. While many believe that the civil rights movement began in the 1950s, communities in the United States organized for equal rights much earlier. Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Plessy in 1896, his arguments led to the “Great Dissent” of Justice John Marshall Harlan. [1] The Committee`s use of civil disobedience and the judicial system foreshadowed the civil rights struggles of the 20th century. [3] The case, known as Brown v. Board of Education, was actually the name given to five separate cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of segregation in public schools.
These are Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Briggs v. Elliot, Davis v. Board of Education of Prince Edward County (VA), Bolling v. Sharpe and Gebhart v. Ethel. Although the facts vary in each case, the main issue in each case has been the constitutionality of state-sponsored segregation in public schools. Once again, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund handled these cases. Tourgée and Phillips appeared in court on behalf of Homer Plessy (the applicant). They argued that the Act violated the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all citizens of the United States equal rights and the protection of those rights from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process.
