Search results
プレッシー対ファーガソン裁判（プレッシーたいファーガソンさいばん、Plessy v. Ferguson）は、「分離すれど平等」の主義のもと公共施設での白人専用等の黒人分離は人種差別に当たらないとし、これを合憲としたアメリカ合衆国の裁判。1890年に成立した ...
After losing twice in the lower courts, Plessy took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the previous decisions that racial segregation is constitutional under the "separate but equal" doctrine. An Oklahoma City streetcar terminal's "colored" drinking fountain, 1939. "The object of the [14th] Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the ...
May 3, 2019 · New Orleans streetcars. Getty Images. By. Robert McNamara. Updated on May 03, 2019. The 1896 landmark Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson established that the policy of “separate but equal” was legal and states could pass laws requiring segregation of the races. By declaring that Jim Crow laws were constitutional, the nation’s ...
Jan 5, 2022 · In a nod to the historic implications of the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards has pardoned Plessy for defying the law. The pardon’s proponents, who include the ...
Jan 21, 2007 · Ferguson •. (1896) Plessy v. Ferguson. Primary Document. Homer Plessy tomb plaque, New Orleans. Photo by Russ Nelson, CC BY-SA 2.0. Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court. This case turns upon the constitutionality of an act of the general assembly of the state of Louisiana ...
A mixed-race man named Homer Plessy challenged the law by sitting in a seat reserved for white passengers, for which he was arrested. Plessy and his legal team hoped that the Separate Car Act would be declared unconstitutional if his case, Plessy v. Ferguson, reached the Supreme Court. However, the strategy backfired: the Court accepted the ...
Under the Founders’ Constitution, according to the Court majority, blacks could not be citizens of the United States and possessed “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”. The decision in Plessy v. Ferguson made the institutionalization of Jim Crow possible through its narrow interpretation of the 14th amendment.
