Study Notes on Plessy v. Ferguson Briefs and Legal Arguments
Plessy's litigation awaited a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Both sides had to submit written arguments called briefs to argue their cases.
The briefs had to convince the Court on the following points:
The Court had jurisdiction.
There was an actual case or controversy.
There was a justiciable federal issue.
Plessy or Louisiana had a reasonable chance to win the appeal on its merits.
Submission of Briefs
Each side's briefs contained different interpretations of precedent.
The difficulty of persuading justices to overrule their own precedents.
Plessy’s counsel highlighted the lack of directly applicable precedent.
Primary attorneys: Phillips and McKenney.
Procedural Arguments
Phillips and McKenney's primary argument:
The Separate Car Act violated the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Procedural arguments were based on the established facts:
The state of Louisiana had admitted to arresting Plessy for violating the law.
Plessy was neither intoxicated nor disorderly during the incident.
Notably, the record did not confirm Plessy's racial identity (white vs. colored).
They argued the omission strengthened their case.
They posited that discrimination was unlawful regardless of whether the individual was white or colored.
Constitutional Arguments
The act instituted racial discrimination based on past institutions of slavery:
Asserted that such discrimination reflected remnants of antebellum racial hierarchies.
Phillips and McKenney equated racial classification with oppression reminiscent of slavery:
Claimed that both white individuals sitting in colored cars and colored individuals in white cars suffered constitutional violations.
Argumentation Strategy
The characterization of discrimination under the Separate Car Act:
Act was seen as a reassertion of the Old South and its cultural racism.
They argued that Northern justices ought to uphold the principles of Union victory and Reconstruction.
Missed Counterarguments:
The law mandated equal accommodations, undermining the claim against its discriminatory nature.
Argued a false dichotomy by accepting categories of racial classification in their case.
Legal Justifications
Phillips and McKenney's assertions were broadened by citing previous cases:
Railroad Company v. Brown (1873): Included congressional mandates against color-based exclusion in trains.
Crandall v. State of Nevada (1867): The Court prevented taxation affecting interstate travelers, strengthening Plessy's argument due to federal facilities relevance.
Argument From Tourgée
Tourgée's section was a multi-faceted attack on the Separate Car Act:
Argued color-based discrimination violated the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery.
Asserted excessive authority was given to train conductors, who should not make racial judgments.
Highlighted that the law violated common carriers' duties of care, limiting their liability.
No significant purpose existed for such discriminatory distinctions.
Discrimination categories within the law were arbitrary and unjustifiable.
Concluded the law was overly broad and vague, violating the principles of justice.
Legal Theories Asserted by Tourgée
Tourgée contended:
The deprivation of identity as property—racial classification as a property loss.
Argued for an alternative legal strategy, balancing constitutional and rights claims.
Highlighted the complexities of racial identity, framing the law as a mechanism for enslavement through caste systems.
Asserted that federal authority should override state legislation affecting equal rights, suggesting new citizenship definitions broader than mere race.
Critique of Judicial Precedents
Criticized decision-making inconsistency among justices in determining the applicability of prior cases — Slaughterhouse Cases and Strauder v. West Virginia used to support new interpretations of racial equality.
Empirical references to litigation history and legal battles over making distinctions between races, imploring the Court to recognize these differences.
Addressed interpretive limits of Fourteenth Amendment and its application to racial categories.
Presentation in Court
On April 13, 1896, attorneys Phillips and Tourgée presented oral arguments emphasizing the aforementioned themes.
Key points from oral arguments:
Disregard for classification of race among citizens was unjust and unconstitutional.
Emphasized human interest, social justice, and moral implications of discriminative race laws.
Conclusion of Litigation
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on May 18, 1896, upheld the Separate Car Act, thereby legitimizing discriminatory state laws.
The Court's decision provided a legal framework supporting the Jim Crow laws.
Impact: Affirmed race-based discrimination, negating the arguments put forth by Plessy's legal team.
In the aftermath, the ruling set a precedent that solidified the legal status of segregation, remaining unchallenged until the mid-20th century civil rights movement that sought to overturn these principles.