The Plessy Decision

Although the explanation of Independence declared that "All guys are developed equal," due to the college of slavery, this declare was not to be grounded in regulation in the United claims until ~ the Civil battle (and, arguably, not completely fulfilled for plenty of years thereafter). In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified and also finally placed an end to slavery. Moreover, the Fourteenth modification (1868) strengthened the legal legal rights of recently freed slaves by stating, amongst other things, the no state candlestick deprive anyone of either "due procedure of law" or the the "equal security of the law." Finally, the Fifteenth revised (1870) further strengthened the legal civil liberties of newly freed slaves by prohibiting claims from denying everyone the right to vote due to race.

You are watching: Brown vs board of education arguments

Despite this Amendments, african Americans were often treated differently than whites in many parts that the country, especially in the South. In fact, plenty of state legislatures enacted laws that resulted in the legit mandated segregation of the races. In various other words, the regulations of numerous states decreed that blacks and also whites could not usage the very same public facilities, journey the same buses, attend the same schools, etc. This laws happened known together Jim crow laws. Although many world felt the these legislations were unjust, it was not until the 1890s the they were directly challenged in court. In 1892, an African-American male named Homer Plessy refused to provide up his chair to a white man on a train in brand-new Orleans, as he was required to execute by Louisiana state law. Because that this activity he was arrested. Plessy, contending that the Louisiana regulation separating blacks from whites on trains violated the "equal protection clause" the the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, chose to fight his arrest in court. By 1896, his situation had made it all the method to the United says Supreme Court. By a vote of 8-1, the supreme Court ruled versus Plessy. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, justice Henry Billings Brown, composing the bulk opinion, stated that:

"The thing of the revised was without doubt to force the equality that the 2 races before the law, however in the nature of things it might not have been intended come abolish distinguish based top top color, or to endorse social, as distinguished from political, equality. . . If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United claims cannot put them upon the same plane."

The lone dissenter, Justice john Marshal Harlan, interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment another way, stated, "Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes amongst citizens." justice Harlan"s dissent would become a rallying cry because that those in later on generations the wished to explain segregation unconstitutional.

Sadly, together a result of the Plessy decision, in the at an early stage twentieth century the supreme Court continued to uphold the legality the Jim crow laws and other develops of racial discrimination. In the instance of Cumming v. Richmond (Ga.) County plank of Education (1899), because that instance, the Court refuse to concern an injunction avoiding a school board from spending taxes money on a white high school once the same school board voted to close down a black color high school for jae won reasons. Moreover, in Gong Lum v. Rice (1927), the Court upheld a school"s decision to bar a human of Chinese lower from a "white" school.

The roadway to Brown

(Note: few of the situation information is native Patterson, James T. Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil civil liberties Milestone and also Its Troubled Legacy. Oxford university Press; new York, 2001.)

Early Cases

Despite the supreme Court"s ruling in Plessy and comparable cases, many people continued to push for the abolition that Jim Crow and also other racially discriminatory laws. One certain organization that combated for racial equality was the nationwide Association for the advancement of Colored world (NAACP) founded in 1909. For around the first twenty years of that is existence, that tried to guide Congress and also other legislative bodies to enact regulations that would defend African american from lynchings and other racism actions. Beginning in the 1930s, though, the NAACP"s legit Defense and also Education Fund began to rotate to the courts to try to make progress in overcoming legitimate sanctioned discrimination. Native 1935 to 1938, the legal eight of the NAACP was headed through Charles Hamilton Houston. Houston, in addition to Thurgood Marshall, devised a strategy to assault Jim Crow laws by striking in ~ them wherein they were perhaps weakest—in the field of education. Although Marshall played a crucial role in every one of the cases provided below, Houston was the head that the NAACP legit Defense and Education fund while Murray v. Maryland and also Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada to be decided. After Houston went back to private exercise in 1938, Marshall ended up being head the the Fund and also used that to controversy the cases of Sweat v. Painter and also McLaurin v. Oklahoma board of Regents of greater Education.

Murray v. Maryland (1936)

Disappointed that the college of Maryland college of law was rejecting black applicants solely since of your race, start in 1933 Thurgood Marshall (who was himself rejected from this legislation school because of that racial accept policies) made decision to challenge this practice in the Maryland court system. Before a Baltimore City Court in 1935, Marshall said that Donald Gaines Murray was just as qualified as white applicants to attend the university of Maryland"s school of Law and that it to be solely because of his gyeongju that he to be rejected. Furthermore, he argued that due to the fact that the "black" law schools i beg your pardon Murray would certainly otherwise have to attend to be nowhere close to the same academic caliber together the University"s regulation school, the university was violating the rule of "separate but equal." Moreover, Marshall argued that the disparities in between the "white" and "black" law schools were so good that the just remedy would be to permit students like Murray to attend the University"s legislation school. The Baltimore City Court agreed and also the college then appealed to the Maryland Court the Appeals. In 1936, the Court that Appeals likewise ruled in favor of Murray and ordered the regulation school to admit him. Two years later, Murray graduated.

Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada (1938)

Beginning in 1936, the NAACP legit Defense and Education Fund made decision to take it on the situation of Lloyd Gaines, a graduate college student of Lincoln university (an all-black college) who used to the university of Missouri legislation School yet was denied due to the fact that of his race. The State the Missouri gave Gaines the choice of either attending an all-black legislation school the it would develop (Missouri did no have any type of all-black legislation schools at this time) or having Missouri help to pay because that him to attend a regulation school in a neighboring state. Gaines garbage both of these options, and, use the solutions of Thurgood Marshall and also the NAACP legit Defense and Education Fund, he chose to sue the state in bespeak to to visit the college of Missouri"s legislation school. By 1938, his case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, and, in December of that year, the Court sided through him. The six-member bulk stated that due to the fact that a "black" law school go not at this time exist in the State that Missouri, the "equal defense clause" required the state to provide, within its boundaries, a legal education and learning for Gaines. In other words, since the state listed legal education and learning for white students, it might not send black students, favor Gaines, to institution in one more state.

Sweat v. Painter (1950)

Encouraged through their success in Gaines" case, the NAACP ongoing to assault legally sanctioned gyeongju discrimination in greater education. In 1946, an afri American male named Heman Sweat used to the university of Texas" "white" legislation school. Hoping that it would not need to admit Sweat to the "white" regulation school if a "black" school already existed, somewhere else on the University"s campus, the state hastily collection up an underfunded "black" legislation school. At this point, Sweat to work the services of Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP legit Defense and Education Fund and sued to it is in admitted come the University"s "white" law school. He said that the education that he to be receiving in the "black" legislation school was not of the same academic caliber together the education and learning that he would be receiving if that attended the "white" law school. As soon as the situation reached the U.S. Can be fried Court in 1950, the Court unanimously agreed through him, citing together its factor the turoulend inequalities between the University"s regulation school (the school for whites) and also the hastily put up school for blacks. In other words, the "black" regulation school was "separate," yet not "equal." like the Murray case, the Court discovered the only appropriate remedy because that this instance was to admit Sweat come the University"s legislation school.

McLaurin v. Oklahoma plank of Regents of higher Education (1950)

In 1949, the college of Oklahoma admitted George McLaurin, an african American, come its doctoral program. However, it required him to sit except the rest of his class, eat at a different time and also table indigenous white students, etc. McLaurin, stating the these actions to be both unusual and resulting in adverse effects on his scholastic pursuits, sued to put an finish to these practices. McLaurin employed Thurgood Marshall and also the NAACP legit Defense and Education fund to argue his case, a situation which ultimately went come the U.S. Can be fried Court. In an opinion delivered on the very same day together the decision in Sweat, the Court stated that the University"s actions worrying McLaurin to be adversely influence his ability to learn and also ordered the they cease immediately.

Brown v. Plank of Education (1954, 1955)

The situation that became known as Brown v. Plank of Education was actually the name provided to five separate instances that to be heard by the U.S. Can be fried Court worrying the concern of segregation in publicly schools. These instances were Brown v. Board of education of Topeka, Briggs v. Elliot, Davis v. Board of education and learning of Prince Edward ar (VA.), Bolling v. Sharpe, and Gebhart v. Ethel. If the facts of each instance are different, the main worry in each to be the constitutionality of state-sponsored distinction in public schools. Once again, Thurgood Marshall and also the NAACP legitimate Defense and Education fund handled this cases.

Although it identified some of the plaintiffs"/plaintiffs claims, a three-judge panel at the U.S. District Court the heard the situations ruled in donate of the institution boards. The plaintiffs climate appealed come the U.S. Can be fried Court.

When the instances came prior to the can be fried Court in 1952, the Court consolidated all five cases under the name of Brown v. Plank of Education. Marshall personally argued the case prior to the Court. Return he raised a range of legal issues on appeal, the most usual one was the separate institution systems because that blacks and also whites were inherently unequal, and also thus hurt the "equal protection clause" that the Fourteenth Amendment come the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, relying on sociological tests, such as the one perform by society scientist Kenneth Clark, and also other data, he additionally argued that segregated college systems had actually a tendency to do black kids feel inferior to white children, and thus such a device should not be legally permissible.

See more: Can You Check Text Messages Online From My Cell Phone, 4 Ways To Read Text Messages Online For Free

Meeting to decision the case, the judge of the supreme Court realized that they to be deeply divided over the concerns raised. While many wanted to turning back Plessy and declare distinction in public institutions to be unconstitutional, they had actually various factors for act so. Can not to pertained to a systems by June 1953 (the finish of the Court"s 1952-1953 term), the Court decided to rehear the case in December 1953. Throughout the intervening months, however, chef Justice Fred Vinson died and was replaced by Gov. Earl Warren of California. After the situation was reheard in 1953, cook Justice Warren to be able to execute something that his predecessor had not—i.e. Bring all of the judge to agree to assistance a unanimous decision advertising segregation in public institutions unconstitutional. On may 14, 1954, he delivered the opinion the the Court, stating the "We conclude that in the ar of public education the theory of "separate yet equal" has no place. Different educational infrastructure are naturally unequal. . ."

Expecting opposition come its ruling, specifically in the southerly states, the can be fried Court did not immediately shot to offer direction because that the implementation that its ruling. Rather, the asked the attorney generals the all says with regulations permitting segregation in your public schools to submit plans for just how to proceed with desegregation. ~ still much more hearings before the Court concerning the matter of desegregation, on might 31, 1955, the judge handed down a plan for exactly how it to be to proceed; desegregation was to continue with "all intentional speed." although it would be plenty of years before all segregated college systems were to be desegregated, Brown and Brown II (as the Courts plan for exactly how to desegregate schools happened called) were responsible for obtaining the procedure underway.