The statute of Louisiana, acts of 1890, c. 111, requiring railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in that State,
to provide equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races, by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations; and providing that no person shall be permitted to occupy seats in coaches other than the ones assigned to them, on account of the race they belong to; and requiring the officer of the passenger train to assign each passenger to the coach or compartment assigned for the race to which he or she belong; and imposing fines or imprisonment upon passengers insisting on going into a coach or compartment other than the one set aide for the race to which he or she belongs; and conferring upon officers of the train power to refuse to carry on the train passengers refusing to occupy the coach or compartment assigned to them, and exempting the railway company from liability for such refusal, are not in conflict with the provisions either of the Thirteenth Amendment or of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Which best explains why the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional? The Supreme Court’s ruling allowed states to deny equal protection to any person within its jurisdiction. Since the 14th Amendment did not make concessions for people born outside the US, the Supreme Court’s decision could not be applied. The Supreme Court’s decision gave individual states the freedom to make their own laws in relation to non-whites. Since segregation laws did not provide equal protections or liberties to non-whites, the ruling was not consistent with the 14th Amendment. Mark this and return
The Supreme Court’s decision gave individual states the freedom to make their own laws in relation to non-whites.
In the pivotal case of Plessy v. Ferguson<span> in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racially separate facilities, if equal, did not violate the Constitution. The court said that the Segregation was not discrimination.</span>
