Is state-mandated racial segregation in public transportation constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Homer Plessy, a man of mixed racial heritage, was arrested for violating Louisiana's Separate Car Act. This law mandated segregated railway carriages for white and Black passengers. Plessy, who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth Black, deliberately sat in a whites-only train car to challenge the constitutionality of the Act. Upon his arrest, Plessy contended that the Separate Car Act was in violation of both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The case arose from Plessy's intentional act of civil disobedience, designed to test the legality of racial segregation laws in public accommodations. By choosing to sit in a whites-only car despite his mixed-race background, Plessy directly confronted the legal framework supporting racial segregation in Louisiana and, by extension, throughout the Southern United States.

Plessy was arrested and charged with violating the Louisiana Separate Car Act. He filed a petition for writs of prohibition and certiorari against Judge John H. Ferguson of the Criminal District Court for Orleans Parish. The Supreme Court of Louisiana heard the case and upheld the law. Plessy then appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

(Brown, J.)

Yes. State-mandated racial segregation in public transportation is constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment's purpose is to enforce political and civil equality between races, not to abolish distinctions based on color or to enforce social equality. Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to eliminate distinctions based on physical differences. Attempts to do so can only result in accentuating difficulties of the present situation. Laws permitting and even requiring separation of races in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other. The most common instance of this is the establishment of separate schools for white and Black children, which has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of states where the political rights of the Black race have been longest and most earnestly enforced. The "separate but equal" doctrine establishes that separation of races is constitutional as long as equal facilities are provided. This doctrine extends to public transportation, as the provision of separate but equal accommodations does not violate the principle of equality before the law. The Louisiana law in question is a reasonable regulation, and its validity must be determined in light of established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, with a view to preserving public peace and order. The law does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, as it does not reestablish involuntary servitude, nor does it violate the Fourteenth Amendment, as it falls within the scope of the police power of the state to regulate public accommodations in the interest of public comfort and security.

Dissent (Harlan, J.) The Constitution is color-blind and does not allow for the regulation of civil rights based on race. This decision will be as pernicious as the Dred Scott decision and will stimulate aggressions upon the rights of Black citizens. The separate but equal doctrine established by the majority opinion is fundamentally flawed and contradicts the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent that will perpetuate racial discrimination and undermine the progress made towards civil rights. The Court's interpretation ignores the true intent of the Fourteenth Amendment and fails to protect the rights of all citizens equally under the law.