Plessy v. Ferguson

Mon, 13 Apr 1896 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Former Louisiana State Capitol Building

100 North Blvd. Baton Rouge LA 70801

Baton Rouge, LA 70801

United States

30° 26' 49.2" N, 91° 11' 24" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

210

Petitioner

Plessy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ferguson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Fuller Court (1896-1897)

Decided By

Fuller Court (1896-1897)

Opinion

163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Argued

Monday, April 13, 1896

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1896

Facts of the Case

The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested.

Question

Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ferguson, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const. Amend 14, Section 1

No, the state law is within constitutional boundaries. The majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, upheld state-imposed racial segregation. The justices based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal. (The phrase, "separate but equal" was not part of the opinion.) Justice Brown conceded that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law. But Brown noted that "in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either." In short, segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.

Wong Wing v. United States

Wed, 01 Apr 1896 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

204

Petitioner

Wong Wing

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Fuller Court (1896-1897)

Decided By

Fuller Court (1896-1897)

Opinion

163 U.S. 228 (1896)

Argued

Wednesday, April 1, 1896

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1896

Facts of the Case

The Chinese Exclusion Act imposed imprisonment at hard labor and deportation to Chinese persons convicted of unlawful entry to or presence in the United States. Wong Wing was charged under the Act. A commissioner of the Circuit Court (who was not a judge) found that Wong Wing was an unlawful alien and sentenced him to 60 days at hard labor followed by deportation to China. Wong Wing sought a writ of habeas corpus, but it was denied. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Does penalty of imprisonment at hard labor and deportation without a jury trial constitute a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?

Conclusion

Yes; consequently, the imprisonment provisions of the Act are void. Congress may deport without a jury trial, but imprisonment at hard labor is an infamous offense calling for judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused. "It is not consistent with our theory of government that the legislature should, after having defined an offense as an infamous crime, find the fact of guilt and adjudge the punishment by one of its own agents."

Cases - 1895 term

Plessy v. Ferguson

Location

Wong Wing v. United States