 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Plessy v. Ferguson, No. 210,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 18, 1896
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner, who was charged by information with violating 1890 La. Acts No. 111, p. 152, argued that the statute was unconstitutional. The state supreme court disagreed and denied petitioner's request for a writ of prohibition. The United States Supreme Court affirmed. The statute did not conflict with the. A statute that implied merely a legal distinction between differing races did not tend to destroy the legal equality of the two races or to reestablish a state of involuntary servitude. The statute also did not violate the. In determining whether the statute was a reasonable regulation, the Louisiana legislature was given a large amount of discretion; the legislature was at liberty to act with reference to the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to preserving public peace and good order. The Court rejected petitioner's argument that the separation of the two races stamped one race with a badge of inferiority. A legislature had to secure for its citizens equal rights before the law. If one race was inferior to another socially, the Federal Constitution could not put the two races upon the same plane.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
