20th/Raffel
The Four Trials of Homer Plessy
It’s 1892 and Homer Adolph Plessy decides to break the law. Plessy is a black man who could
pass for white because of his light complexion.
Two years earlier, in 1890, the state of Louisiana passed a law which stated that black and white
people could legally be separated on train cars. The penalty for sitting in the wrong
compartment was a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail.
Plessy and supporters of African American rights considered the Louisiana law unconstitutional
because of the following language in the 14th amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
To challenge the law, Plessy purchased a first class train ticket on the East Louisiana Railway.
He entered the train and took an empty seat in a car reserved for whites only. The conductor
demanded that he leave his seat and moved to car reserved for the “colored race.” When Plessy
refused to move, he was arrested.
John H. Ferguson was the judge presiding over Plessy's criminal case in Louisiana state court.
He found Plessy guilty of violating the law. Plessy appealed Ferguson’s ruling to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
The judges of the Supreme Court met and discussed the cases presented by the State of Louisiana
(and Judge Ferguson) and Homer Plessy. In this activity, you will role-play a Supreme Court
judge and rule on several arguments related to the case.
Your first task is to read the four cases below. For each case:
A. Highlight any errors made by the lawyers for Louisiana or Plessy
B. As a group, rule for either Louisiana or Plessy in each case. Explain your ruling in 3-4
complete sentences
Case #1:
Louisiana’s Argument:
The conductors on the train didn’t know what the 14th amendment stated, so they could not be
responsible for it. Besides, they are residents of Louisiana, and those local laws are more
powerful to the residents of the state.
Plessy’s Argument:
The Louisiana law should never have been enforced because it violates the portion of the 14th
amendment that deals with transportation laws. The state doesn’t have the right to deprive
Homer Plessy of due process according to the amendment.
1A. Inaccuracies in either argument:
1B. Your ruling based on the arguments (3-4 complete sentences):
Case #2:
Louisiana’s Argument:
The Constitution and the 14 Amendment do not apply because there are separate facilities
provided on the train. Homer Plessy has the liberty to sit only in the “black” seats just as men
and women use separate bathroom facilities in public buildings.
th
Plessy’s Argument:
The language of the 14th amendment is clear: Homer Plessy is not being allowed his “liberty” to
sit anywhere he wants on the train. As a citizen of the United States, Plessy is entitled to “life,
liberty and property.”
2A. Inaccuracies in either argument:
2B. Your ruling based on the arguments (3-4 complete sentences):
Case #3:
Louisiana’s Argument:
Homer Plessy deliberately sat in the “white” passenger seats. Even if a law is unfair or
unconstitutional, a person breaking the law should be arrested. Citizens can’t just break the law
anytime they want to test it.
Plessy’s Argument:
The 14 amendment has been ratified; it is the law for the entire country. State laws are inferior
to the U.S. constitution. Supreme Court judges are more intelligent about the laws than state
judges such as Judge Ferguson.
th
3A. Inaccuracies in either argument:
3B. Your ruling based on the arguments (3-4 complete sentences):
Case #4:
Louisiana’s Argument:
The 14 amendment was meant to create equality, but there are differences between black people
and white people. As long as white people and black people have separate but equal facilities,
state laws are constitutional. Their civil rights of both groups are protected.
th
Plessy’s Argument:
The 14 amendment guarantees “equal protection of the laws” to everyone. The Louisiana law
requires segregated seating because it assumes that white people are superior to black people.
This assumption violates Plessy’s civil rights and the “equal protection” language of the 14th
amendment.
th
4A. Inaccuracies in either argument:
4B. Your ruling based on the arguments (3-4 complete sentences):
Reflection Questions:
1. Which case do you think most closely reflects the real arguments in Plessy v. Ferguson?
Explain in 3-4 sentences
2. In the real case, which point of view is more persuasive to you? Explain in 3-4
sentences.
(do not turn the page, please!)
What the Court Decided (May 18, 1896)
Judge Henry B. Brown:
The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of
the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish
distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a
commingling [mixing] of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and
even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not
necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other....
3. Paraphrase this paragraph:
4. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Justice John Marshall Harlan:
Everyone knows that the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude
white persons from railway cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches
occupied by or assigned to white persons….Further, if this statute of Louisiana is consistent with
the personal liberty of citizens…[why can’t] the state require…the separation…of native and
naturalized citizens of the United States or of Protestants and Roman Catholics?
5. Paraphrase this paragraph.
The white race deems [considers] itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in
prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue
to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage, and holds fast to the principles of
constitutional liberty. But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this
country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is
color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all
citizens are equal before the law.
6. Paraphrase this paragraph.
7. Who do you agree with, Harlan or Brown? Why?
8. Who spoke for the majority of the Supreme Court, Brown or Harlan? How do you
know?
9. What is the significance of the other opinion, if any?
Case #5: A Modern Day Application:
Mr. Raffel’s Argument:
Mr. Raffel was recently denied a car loan from Bank of America. Since he did not get the car
loan, he was unable to purchase his dream car, a 2009 Subaru Forester. Since he could not drive,
he had to resign as a teacher at L-S. He argues that by denying him credit, the bank
discriminated in a way that violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment.
Bank of America’s Argument:
Bank of America argues that its business depends on charging various interest rates to customers
based on their likely ability to repay their loans. Without different rates (riskier customers pay
more), less credit would be available to society, as riskier customers would be denied credit. In
Mr. Raffel was denied credit in this case because his monthly mortgage payment arrived two
days late.
5A. Inaccuracies in either argument:
5B. Your ruling based on the arguments (3-4 complete sentences):