Like Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. The Board of Education did not come to the Supreme Court by accident; The whole case was created as a test case as a result of significant political and social changes. Both the United States and the Soviet Union were at the height of the Cold War at that time, and American officials, including Supreme Court justices, were aware of the damage that segregation and racism inflicted on America`s international image. When Justice Douglas visited India in 1950, the first question he was asked was, “Why does America tolerate the lynching of black people?” Douglas later wrote that he had learned from all his travels that “the attitude of the United States toward its colored minorities is a powerful factor in our relationship with India.” Chief Justice Warren, who wrote the court`s unanimous opinion in Brown I, reiterated Douglas`s concerns in a 1954 speech to the American Bar Association, proclaiming, “Our American system, like all others, is judged both at home and abroad. The extent to which we preserve the spirit of our Constitution with its Bill of Rights will, in the long run, do more to make it both safe and an object of admiration than the number of hydrogen bombs we stockpile. A month after his arrest, Plessy appeared before Judge John Howard Ferguson. Plessy`s attorney, Albion Tourgee, said Plessy`s rights under the 13th and 14th amendments were violated. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the 14th Amendment gave everyone equal protection of the law.
[16] Despite Justice Harlan`s predictions of the assault that would result from the decision in this case, no major national protest followed. The decision was easily reported and commented upon, and for many people, segregation became a part of everyday life for the next 60 years, until Brown v. School Authority. After the completion of Reconstruction, the federal government adopted a general policy of leaving racial segregation to the various states. An example of this policy is the Second Morrill Act (Morrill Act of 1890). Before the end of the war, the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act (Morrill Act of 1862) had provided federal funding for higher education by each state, leaving the details to state legislators. [11] The 1890 law implicitly accepted the legal concept of “separate but equal” for the 17 states that had institutionalized segregation. Relevance: The Supreme Court ruled that Texas could not demonstrate separate but equal education, anticipating the future view in Brown that “separate but equal is inherently unequal.” The Court held that intangible assets must be considered part of “substantive equality” when considering higher education. The Supreme Court`s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson formalized the legal principle of “separate but equal.” The decision required that “railroads that carry passengers in their cars in this state provide equal but separate accommodation for white and colored races.” [17] The layout of each car had to be identical to those of the others. Separate railway cars could be provided.
The railroad could deny service to passengers who refused, and the Supreme Court ruled that this did not violate the 13th and 14th Amendments. Plessy v. Ferguson was important because it essentially established the constitutionality of racial segregation. As a defining precedent, it prevented constitutional challenges to racial segregation for more than half a century until it was finally struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Brownv case. Topeka School Board (1954). Sipuel v. The Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the racial segregation of African Americans by the University of Oklahoma and the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court decided to further accelerate the desegregation process. In Milliken v. Bradley, the court concluded that even if a county`s current practices could meet court standards, the court could force a county to establish remedial programs to fill educational gaps resulting from past behaviors. In 1990, in Missouri v. Jenkins, the court ruled that federal courts could even order local counties to raise taxes to fund these reparation programs. In the conclusion, Warren wrote: “We conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal` has no place. Segregated educational institutions are inherently unequal; Segregation in public education is a denial of equal protection of laws. In Brown II (1955), the Court held that the problems identified in Brown I required different local solutions. Chief Justice Warren assigned responsibility for implementing desegregation to local school boards and the courts that initially adjudicated school segregation cases.
