Plessy v. Ferguson (original) (raw)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) je jedním z klíčových rozhodnutí Nejvyššího soudu Spojených států amerických podporující segregaci a ústavnost doktríny „“ (česky odděleni, ale rovni). V roce 1890 přijal stát Louisiana zákon, který požadoval oddělené vagóny pro černé a bílé lidi. Ve městě New Orleans skupina občanů ve snaze zákon zrušit přesvědčila Homera Plessyho, který byl z jedné osminy černošského původu, aby jej otestoval.
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| dbo:abstract | El cas Plessy contra Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896), va ser una important decisió del Tribunal Suprem dels Estats Units que va confirmar la constitucionalitat de les lleis de segregació racial per a instal·lacions públiques sempre que les instal·lacions segregades fossin iguals de qualitat, una doctrina que va arribar a ser coneguda com "separats però iguals". La decisió va legitimar les moltes lleis estatals que restablien la segregació racial que s'havia aprovat al Sud dels Estats Units després de la fi de la reconstrucció (1865-1877). La decisió va comportar un cas que es va originar el 1892 quan Homer Plessy, un octoroon (persona d'ascendent de set vuitens de blanc i un vuitè de negre) resident a Nova Orleans, que va violar deliberadament la de Louisiana del 1890, exigia "igualtat, però separats" en l'allotjament en cotxes de tren per a passatgers blancs i no blancs. En ser acusat, els advocats de Plessy el van defensar argumentant que la llei era inconstitucional. Va perdre en el judici i es va afirmar la seva condemna en la seva demanda al Tribunal Suprem de Louisiana. Finalment, Plessy va recórrer al Tribunal Suprem dels Estats Units, que va acordar escoltar el seu cas. Al maig de 1896, el Tribunal Suprem va dictar una decisió de 7 a 1 contra la decisió de Plessy; establint així que la llei de Louisiana no violava la Catorzena esmena de la Constitució dels Estats Units, afirmant que tot i que la Catorzena Esmena establia la igualtat legal dels nord-americans blancs i negres, no es podia exigir l'eliminació de totes les "distincions" socials o altres basades en el color. La Cort va rebutjar els arguments dels advocats de Plessy segons els quals la llei de Louisiana implicava de manera inherent que els negres eren inferiors i va donar una gran deferència al poder inherent dels legisladors dels Estats nord-americans de fer lleis que regulessin la salut, la seguretat i la moral — el "poder policial" — i determinar la raonabilitat de les lleis que van aprovar. El jutge John Marshall Harlan va ser l'únic dissident de la decisió del Tribunal, escrivint que la Constitució dels Estats Units "és daltònica i no coneix ni tolera les classes entre els ciutadans", per la qual cosa la llei hauria d'haver estat considerada inconstitucional. Plessy és considerada com una de les pitjors decisions de la història del Tribunal Suprem dels Estats Units. Malgrat la seva infàmia, la decisió en si mateixa mai no ha estat rebutjada explícitament.. Tanmateix, una sèrie de decisions posteriors a partir del cas 1954 de Brown contra el Consell d'Educació va afirmar que la doctrina "separats però iguals" és inconstitucional en el context de les escoles públiques i els equipaments educatius debilitant greument Plessy fins al punt que es considera que ha estat anul·lada de facto. (ca) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) je jedním z klíčových rozhodnutí Nejvyššího soudu Spojených států amerických podporující segregaci a ústavnost doktríny „“ (česky odděleni, ale rovni). V roce 1890 přijal stát Louisiana zákon, který požadoval oddělené vagóny pro černé a bílé lidi. Ve městě New Orleans skupina občanů ve snaze zákon zrušit přesvědčila Homera Plessyho, který byl z jedné osminy černošského původu, aby jej otestoval. (cs) Plessy v. Ferguson ist ein 1896 vom Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten entschiedener Fall, der als Grundsatzentscheidung in der Geschichte des Gerichts gilt. Das Gericht hatte darüber zu entscheiden, ob ein Gesetz des Staates Louisiana, das getrennte Abteile für Bürger weißer und schwarzer Hautfarbe in Eisenbahnzügen vorschrieb, gegen die Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten verstoße. Es verneinte dies mit sieben zu einer Richterstimme und erklärte damit die Bereitstellung getrennter Einrichtungen für Weiße und Schwarze unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen für zulässig. Durch dieses Urteil wurde damit de facto das Prinzip Separate but equal, also „Getrennt aber gleich“, als Basis der Rassentrennung in den Südstaaten etabliert. Die Entscheidung Plessy v. Ferguson wurde 1954 durch das Urteil im Fall Brown v. Board of Education, das aber nur das öffentliche Schulwesen betraf, und später andere Urteile effektiv, aber formal nie, aufgehoben. In der US-amerikanischen Geschichtsschreibung wird Plessy zusammen mit Dred Scott v. Sandford und Korematsu v. United States allgemein als eines der schlechtesten Urteile des Obersten Gerichtshofs angesehen. Die Benennung des Falls ergibt sich der angelsächsischen Rechtstraditionen entsprechend aus den Namen der beiden als Prozessparteien beteiligten Personen, des Schuhmachers Homer Plessy und des Richters John Howard Ferguson, sowie der Abkürzung für den aus dem Lateinischen entnommenen juristischen Fachausdruck „versus“ (deutsch: „gegen“). (de) El caso Plessy contra Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) es una decisión legal en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en el que se decidió mantener la constitucionalidad de la segregación racial incluso en lugares públicos (en especial en redes ferroviarias) bajo la doctrina de «Separados pero iguales». Se dio a conocer el veredicto de siete votos a uno, con la opinión mayoritaria redactada por el juez y la disidente por . no participó en la decisión. «Separados pero iguales» permaneció en las leyes estadounidenses hasta su impugnación en 1954 por decisión de la Corte Suprema en el caso Brown v. Board of Education. Después de que la corte diese la orden, el Comité de Ciudadanos (New Orleans Comité des Citoyens) emprendió un pleito y arrestó a a causa de la ley racial de Luisiana, Plessy replicó, Somos hombres libres, seguimos creyendo en que lo que hacemos es lo correcto y nuestra causa es sagrada. Homer Plessy. (es) Plessy v. Ferguson (Plessy contre Ferguson) est un arrêt de la Cour suprême des États-Unis, (arrêt N° 163 U.S. 537) rendu le 18 mai 1896. Il est parfois cité simplement comme Plessy. Cet arrêt autorise les États du Sud à imposer par la loi des mesures de ségrégation raciale, pourvu que les conditions offertes aux divers groupes « raciaux » par cette ségrégation soient égales, doctrine appelée « separate but equal » (séparés mais égaux) qui dans son effectivité perpétuera des inégalités de fait. Les diverses inégalités constatées dans différents domaines (scolarité, transports publics, culture, logement, etc.) vont être reprises par des avocats du mouvement des droits civiques, plus spécialement de la National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) pour faire valoir qu'elles sont une infraction à l'égale protection de la loi pour tous les citoyens quelle que soit leur race garantie par le XIVe amendement à la constitution. C'est au nom de l’inégalité que l'arrêt va être rendu caduc et définitivement annulé par les arrêts Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al du 17 mai 1954, l'arrêt Browder v. Gayle du 5 juin 1956 et définitivement révoqué par le Civil Rights Act du 9 septembre 1957. (fr) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal". The decision legitimized the many state laws re-establishing racial segregation that had been passed in the American South after the end of the Reconstruction era (1865–1877). The underlying case began in 1892 when Homer Plessy, a mixed-race man, deliberately boarded a "whites-only" train car in New Orleans. By boarding the whites-only car, Plessy violated Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890, which required "equal, but separate" railroad accommodations for white and non-white passengers. Plessy was charged under the Act, and at his trial his lawyers argued that judge John Howard Ferguson should dismiss the charges on the grounds that the Act was unconstitutional. Ferguson denied the request, and the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld Ferguson's ruling on appeal. Plessy then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In May 1896, the Supreme Court issued a 7–1 decision against Plessy, ruling that the Louisiana law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and stating that although the Fourteenth Amendment established the legal equality of whites and blacks it did not and could not require the elimination of all "distinctions based upon color". The Court rejected Plessy's lawyers' arguments that the Louisiana law inherently implied that black people were inferior, and gave great deference to American state legislatures' inherent power to make laws regulating health, safety, and morals—the "police power"—and to determine the reasonableness of the laws they passed. Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenter from the Court's decision, writing that the U.S. Constitution "is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens", and so the law's distinguishing of passengers' races should have been found unconstitutional. Plessy is widely regarded as one of the worst decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history. Despite its infamy, the decision has never been explicitly overruled. But a series of the Court's later decisions, beginning with the 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education—which held that the "separate but equal" doctrine is unconstitutional in the context of public schools—have severely weakened Plessy to the point that it is considered to have been de facto overruled. The United States Congress regards Plessy as having been overruled by Bob Jones University v. United States. (en) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896), adalah dari Mahkamah Agung AS yang menyatakan bahwa undang-undang segregasi rasial tidak melanggar Konstitusi AS selama fasilitas untuk setiap ras adalah sama kualitasnya, sebuah doktrin hukum yang kemudian dikenal sebagai "terpisah tetapi setara" (separate but equal). Putusan tersebut melegitimasi banyak undang-undang negara bagian yang menetapkan segregasi rasial yang sebelumnya telah disahkan di Amerika Serikat bagian Selatan setelah berakhirnya Era Rekonstruksi (1865–1877). Kasus yang mendasarinya dimulai pada tahun 1892 ketika , seorang warga ras campuran New Orleans, dengan sengaja melanggar Undang-Undang Gerbong Terpisah Louisiana 1890 (Separate Car Act), yang mengharuskan akomodasi kereta api "terpisah tetapi setara" untuk penumpang kulit putih dan non-kulit putih. Plessy didakwa telah menaiki gerbong "khusus untuk orang kulit putih". Pengacaranya kemudian mengajukan permohonan kepada Hakim John Howard Ferguson untuk menyatakan gugatan tersebut tidak dapat diterima dengan alasan bahwa undang-undang tersebut tidak konstitusional. Hakim Ferguson menolak permohonan Plessy, dan kemudian menguatkan putusan Ferguson. Plessy kemudian mengajukan banding ke Mahkamah Agung AS. Pada bulan Mei 1896, Mahkamah Agung mengeluarkan keputusan 7-1 terhadap Plessy, memutuskan bahwa hukum Louisiana tidak melanggar Amandemen Keempat Belas Konstitusi AS dan menyatakan bahwa meskipun Amandemen Keempat Belas menetapkan kesetaraan hukum kulit putih dan kulit hitam, hal itu tidak dan tidak bisa mengharuskan penghapusan semua "perbedaan berdasarkan warna kulit". Pengadilan menolak argumen pengacara Plessy bahwa undang-undang Louisiana secara implisit menyatakan bahwa orang kulit hitam adalah berstatus lebih rendah, dan memberikan keleluasaan kepada badan legislatif negara bagian Amerika untuk membuat undang-undang yang mengatur kesehatan, keselamatan, dan moral—""—dan untuk menentukan kewajaran undang-undang yang mereka buat. Hakim John Marshall Harlan adalah satu-satunya yang berbeda dalam putusan ini. Dia menyatakan bahwa Konstitusi AS "buta warna, dan tidak mengenal atau mentolerir kelas-kelas di antara warga negara", dan oleh karena itu pembedaan hukum atas ras penumpang seharusnya dianggap tidak konstitusional. Putusan Plessy secara luas dianggap sebagai salah satu keputusan terburuk dalam sejarah Mahkamah Agung AS. Meski begitu, putusan tersebut tidak pernah secara eksplisit dibatalkan oleh putusan Mahkamah Agung AS lainnya. Namun, serangkaian putusan pengadilan kemudian (dimulai dengan keputusan Brown v. Board of Education) menyatakan bahwa doktrin "terpisah tetapi setara" adalah tidak konstitusional dalam konteks sekolah umum dan fasilitas pendidikan. Putusan ini sangat melemahkan Plessy sampai-sampai dianggap bahwa Plessy telah dibatalkan secara de facto. (in) プレッシー対ファーガソン裁判（プレッシーたいファーガソンさいばん、Plessy v. Ferguson）は、「分離すれど平等」の主義のもと公共施設での白人専用等の黒人分離は人種差別に当たらないとし、これを合憲としたアメリカ合衆国の裁判。1890年に成立したルイジアナ州法で「黒人の血が1滴でもあれば」非白人とみなされ、鉄道車両が白人と別なことに不満を持ったホーマー・プレッシー（8分の7が欧州系、8分の1がアフリカ系,1925年に62歳で死去）は1892年、白人専用車両に乗り込み、移動を拒んだところ、逮捕されて有罪になった。法学上、画期的なアメリカ合衆国最高裁判所の判決となった。連邦最高裁判決は1896年5月18日に7対1の賛成多数によって下された。判決理由の主な見解は判事によって書かれ、判事が反対意見を書いた。「分離すれど平等」の主義、白人と非白人を分離することに法的なお墨付きを与えた連邦最高裁判決であり、米国に大きな影響を与えた。58年後に1954年のブラウン対教育委員会裁判で最終的に否定されるまで、アメリカの標準的な主義として残った。その10年後に1964年公民権法が制定された。 (ja) Plessy contro Ferguson è una sentenza della Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti del 1896, rilevante nella giurisprudenza statunitense in quanto sancisce la legittimità della segregazione razziale, avvalorando la dottrina del separati ma uguali (separate but equal). Nel 1954 la Corte muterà il proprio orientamento in materia con la sentenza "Brown contro l'ufficio scolastico di Topeka", dichiarando incostituzionale la segregazione razziale. (it) 플레시 대 퍼거슨 사건(Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 1896년)은 인종 분리 정책에 대해 ‘분리하되 평등하다(separate but equal)’고 판시한 미국 대법원의 판결이다. 1954년 브라운 대 토피카 교육위원회 재판에 의해 폐기되기까지 58년의 동안 선판례로서 '분리하되 평등의 원칙'을 확립시켰다. (ko) Plessy v. Ferguson (de 1896) foi um caso marcante decidido pela Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos que decidiu sobre a constitucionalidade do direito dos estados da União de impor a segregação racial em locais públicos sob a doutrina do "separate but equal" ("separados mas iguais"). A corte decidiu, por 7 votos a 1, declarar que a segregação nos estados do sul não violava a Constituição dos Estados Unidos (em particular a 14ª Emenda que afirmava que todos os cidadãos eram iguais perante a lei). O juiz , ao falar pela maioria que aprovou a decisão, afirmou que a segregação feita no estado da Luisiana não implicava em inferioridade, aos olhos da lei, dos afro-americanos e que a separação por raça em locais e serviços públicos era uma mera questão política. A voz dissidente dentro da Corte, o juiz John Marshall Harlan, condenou veementemente seus colegas e afirmou que esta decisão seria tão negativamente marcante quanto o "Caso Dred Scott". Ele complementou dizendo que a lei dos Estados Unidos não afirmava que o país tinha um sistema de castas, que a constituição não via a cor da pele de seus cidadãos e que todos eram iguais perante a lei. Vários juristas concordaram com Harlan e a nação se dividiu a respeito. Os estados sulistas, contudo, se regozijaram pois agora seu sistema de segregação por raça tinha uma base jurídica para se apoiar. O "Separados mas iguais", graças a esta decisão, se tornou a doutrina jurídica nos Estados Unidos (especialmente no sul) para justificar a segregação racial no país. Ela só foi derrubada pela Suprema Corte em 1954 com a decisão Brown v. Board of Education. Neste novo caso, os juízes tomaram o caminho contrário aos seus pares de quase sessenta anos atrás ao afirmar que a segregação não era constitucional. (pt) 普莱西诉弗格森案（英語：Plessy v. Ferguson），有时简称“普莱西案”，是美国歷史上一个标志性案件，这个判决维护了种族隔离的合法性，使得美国南部各州在公共场合实施的“隔离但平等”的种族隔离法延续了半个多世纪，直到1954年最高法院判决布朗诉托皮卡教育局案及此后国会于1964年通过的民权法、1965年通过的投票权法后，南部各州实施的种族隔离法才彻底消失。 (zh) Плесси против Фергюсона (англ. Plessy v. Ferguson) 163 U.S. 537 (1896) — решение Верховного суда США, юридически оформившее расовую сегрегацию и подтвердившее её соответствие американской конституции. В 1892 году Гомер Плесси (Homer Plessy), который на 1/8 был негром, сел в поезде в вагон для белых. По законам Луизианы, он был арестован. Плесси обратился в суд, считая, что власти штата нарушают Четырнадцатую поправку к Конституции США, которая гарантирует равенство граждан перед законом. Плесси подал апелляцию в Верховный суд США, который в 1896 году постановил, что разделение граждан на чернокожих и белых не нарушает конституцию. Данное решение укрепило в США явление расовой сегрегации. В ряде штатов были приняты законы, которые устанавливали сегрегацию в учебных заведениях, отелях, ресторанах, больницах, транспорте, туалетах. В судах было две Библии, одна из которых предназначалась для принесения присяги чернокожими. Окончательная отмена сегрегации в США на законодательном уровне произошла спустя 60 лет. В 1963 году состоялся Марш 250 тысяч американцев на Вашингтон, которые требовали равных прав для чернокожих. В июне 1963 года президент Кеннеди в обращении к народу заявил о необходимости принять новое законодательство. Кеннеди был убит в том же году, но многие его предложения вошли в Закон о гражданских правах 1964 года, который запрещал дискриминацию. (ru) |
| dbo:thumbnail | wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Portrait_of_Henry_Billings_Brown.jpg?width=300 |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink | https://archive.org/details/weasfreemenpless00medl https://archive.org/details/colorblindjustic00elli https://www.plessyandferguson.org/ https://guides.loc.gov/plessy-ferguson https://www.newspapers.com/topics/reconstruction/plessy-v-ferguson/ https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep163/usrep163537/usrep163537.pdf https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol39/iss1/1/ https://books.google.com/books%3Fid=U4I7AAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage%23PPA948 https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Freferer=https:/www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4706&context=fss_papers https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/163/537.html https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=16038751515555215717 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/94508/plessy-v-ferguson/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537 http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep163/usrep163537/usrep163537.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20070808091642/http:/www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Medley1003.htm http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/19/Plessy-v-Ferguson |
| dbo:wikiPageID | 142123 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength | 42328 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID | 1122165170 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink | dbr:Samuel_F._Phillips dbr:Misdemeanor dbc:History_of_racial_segregation_in_the_United_States dbr:Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States dbr:David_J._Brewer dbc:1896_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Legal_history_of_Louisiana dbr:Anticanon dbr:Charles_Erasmus_Fenner dbr:United_States_Congress dbr:United_States_constitutional_law dbr:De_facto dbr:De_jure dbc:1896_in_Louisiana dbr:Interstate_Commerce_Commission dbr:List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States dbr:White_supremacy dbr:Attorney_General_of_Louisiana dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Covington,_Louisiana dbr:Nanny dbr:Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 dbr:Mississippi dbr:Equal_Protection_Clause dbc:African-American_Roman_Catholicism dbc:African-American_history_between_emancipation_and_the_civil_rights_movement dbr:Louisiana_State_Legislature dbr:Louisiana_Supreme_Court dbr:Loving_v._Virginia dbr:Lum_v._Rice dbr:Comité_des_Citoyens dbr:Compulsory_education dbr:Keys_v._Carolina_Coach_Co. dbr:Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) dbr:Brown_v._Board_of_Education dbr:C-SPAN dbc:Civil_rights_movement_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Fuller_Court dbc:United_States_equal_protection_case_law dbc:United_States_racial_discrimination_case_law dbr:White_primaries dbr:Gabriel_J._Chin dbr:Landmark_Cases:_Historic_Supreme_Court_Decisions dbr:List_of_14th_amendment_cases dbr:Grandfather_clauses dbr:Albion_W._Tourgée dbr:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford dbr:East_Louisiana_Railroad dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Louisiana_Creole_people dbr:Private_school dbr:Writ_of_prohibition dbr:Henry_Billings_Brown dbr:Interstate_Commerce_Act_of_1887 dbr:Jim_Crow_laws dbr:Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbc:Overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions dbc:Passenger_rail_transportation_in_Louisiana dbr:Chinese_American dbr:John_Bel_Edwards dbr:John_Howard_Ferguson dbr:John_Marshall_Harlan dbr:L._Ed. dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Homer_Plessy dbr:Test_case_(law) dbr:Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Southern_United_States dbr:Milton_Joseph_Cunningham dbr:Natchitoches,_Louisiana dbr:New_Orleans dbr:Octoroon dbr:Race_(human_categorization) dbr:Racial_segregation dbr:Reconstruction_era dbr:State_school dbr:Poll_tax_(United_States) dbr:Literacy_tests dbr:Separate_Car_Act dbr:Reconstruction_Era dbr:Separate_but_equal dbr:Mixed_race dbr:Voting_Rights_Act dbr:Disfranchisement_after_Reconstruction_era dbr:U.S._Constitution dbr:U.S._LEXIS dbr:File:JudgeJMHarlan.jpg dbr:File:ColoredDrinking.jpg dbr:File:JimCrowCar2.jpg dbr:File:Portrait_of_Henry_Billings_Brown.jpg |
| dbp:arguedate | 0001-04-13 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:argueyear | 1896 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:case | Plessy v. Ferguson, (en) |
| dbp:cornell | https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537 |
| dbp:courtlistener | https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/94508/plessy-v-ferguson/ |
| dbp:decidedate | 0001-05-18 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:decideyear | 1896 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:dissent | Harlan (en) |
| dbp:findlaw | https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/163/537.html |
| dbp:fullname | Homer A. Plessy v. John H. Ferguson (en) |
| dbp:googlescholar | https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=16038751515555215717 |
| dbp:holding | The "separate but equal" provision of private services mandated by state government is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. (en) |
| dbp:joinmajority | Fuller, Field, Gray, Shiras, White, Peckham (en) |
| dbp:justia | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/ |
| dbp:lawsapplied | U.S. Const. amends. XIII, XIV; 1890 La. Acts No. 111, p. 152, § 1 (en) |
| dbp:litigants | Plessy v. Ferguson (en) |
| dbp:loc | http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep163/usrep163537/usrep163537.pdf |
| dbp:majority | Brown (en) |
| dbp:notparticipating | Brewer (en) |
| dbp:opinion | https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep163/usrep163537/usrep163537.pdf |
| dbp:overruled | Brown v. Board of Education , and subsequent rulings (en) |
| dbp:parallelcitations | 16 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:prior | https://books.google.com/books%3Fid=U4I7AAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage%23PPA948 |
| dbp:source | Plessy, 163 U.S. at 543–44. (en) Plessy, 163 U.S. at 551. (en) Plessy, 163 U.S. at 557 . (en) Plessy, 163 U.S. at 559 . (en) |
| dbp:subsequent | None (en) |
| dbp:text | 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 of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. (en) We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction on it. (en) Every one knows that the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white people from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons. ... The thing to accomplish was, under the guise of giving equal accommodation for whites and blacks, to compel the latter to keep to themselves while traveling in railroad passenger coaches. No one would be so wanting in candor as to assert the contrary. (en) The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. ... 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. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. (en) |
| dbp:uspage | 537 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:usvol | 163 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate | dbt:Pp-pc1 dbt:'s dbt:Blockquote dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Citation_needed dbt:Cite_book dbt:Cite_journal dbt:Clear dbt:Commons_category dbt:Efn dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Nbsp dbt:Notelist dbt:Page_needed dbt:Redirect-distinguish dbt:Refbegin dbt:Refend dbt:Reflist dbt:Sfn dbt:Sfnp dbt:Short_description dbt:Use_American_English dbt:Use_mdy_dates dbt:Wikisource dbt:Wikisource-inline dbt:Ussc dbt:Civil_rights_movement dbt:African_American_topics dbt:US14thAmendment |
| dct:subject | dbc:History_of_racial_segregation_in_the_United_States dbc:1896_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Legal_history_of_Louisiana dbc:1896_in_Louisiana dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:African-American_Roman_Catholicism dbc:African-American_history_between_emancipation_and_the_civil_rights_movement dbc:Civil_rights_movement_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Fuller_Court dbc:United_States_equal_protection_case_law dbc:United_States_racial_discrimination_case_law dbc:Overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions dbc:Passenger_rail_transportation_in_Louisiana |
| rdf:type | owl:Thing dbo:Case dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork wikidata:Q2334719 yago:WikicatTrialsInTheUnitedStates yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:WikicatOverruledUnitedStatesSupremeCourtDecisions yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Act100030358 yago:Action100037396 yago:Activity100407535 yago:Attempt100786195 yago:Case107308889 yago:Choice100161243 yago:Decision100162632 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase yago:Test100791078 umbel-rc:Event |
| rdfs:comment | Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) je jedním z klíčových rozhodnutí Nejvyššího soudu Spojených států amerických podporující segregaci a ústavnost doktríny „“ (česky odděleni, ale rovni). V roce 1890 přijal stát Louisiana zákon, který požadoval oddělené vagóny pro černé a bílé lidi. Ve městě New Orleans skupina občanů ve snaze zákon zrušit přesvědčila Homera Plessyho, který byl z jedné osminy černošského původu, aby jej otestoval. (cs) プレッシー対ファーガソン裁判（プレッシーたいファーガソンさいばん、Plessy v. Ferguson）は、「分離すれど平等」の主義のもと公共施設での白人専用等の黒人分離は人種差別に当たらないとし、これを合憲としたアメリカ合衆国の裁判。1890年に成立したルイジアナ州法で「黒人の血が1滴でもあれば」非白人とみなされ、鉄道車両が白人と別なことに不満を持ったホーマー・プレッシー（8分の7が欧州系、8分の1がアフリカ系,1925年に62歳で死去）は1892年、白人専用車両に乗り込み、移動を拒んだところ、逮捕されて有罪になった。法学上、画期的なアメリカ合衆国最高裁判所の判決となった。連邦最高裁判決は1896年5月18日に7対1の賛成多数によって下された。判決理由の主な見解は判事によって書かれ、判事が反対意見を書いた。「分離すれど平等」の主義、白人と非白人を分離することに法的なお墨付きを与えた連邦最高裁判決であり、米国に大きな影響を与えた。58年後に1954年のブラウン対教育委員会裁判で最終的に否定されるまで、アメリカの標準的な主義として残った。その10年後に1964年公民権法が制定された。 (ja) Plessy contro Ferguson è una sentenza della Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti del 1896, rilevante nella giurisprudenza statunitense in quanto sancisce la legittimità della segregazione razziale, avvalorando la dottrina del separati ma uguali (separate but equal). Nel 1954 la Corte muterà il proprio orientamento in materia con la sentenza "Brown contro l'ufficio scolastico di Topeka", dichiarando incostituzionale la segregazione razziale. (it) 플레시 대 퍼거슨 사건(Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 1896년)은 인종 분리 정책에 대해 ‘분리하되 평등하다(separate but equal)’고 판시한 미국 대법원의 판결이다. 1954년 브라운 대 토피카 교육위원회 재판에 의해 폐기되기까지 58년의 동안 선판례로서 '분리하되 평등의 원칙'을 확립시켰다. (ko) 普莱西诉弗格森案（英語：Plessy v. Ferguson），有时简称“普莱西案”，是美国歷史上一个标志性案件，这个判决维护了种族隔离的合法性，使得美国南部各州在公共场合实施的“隔离但平等”的种族隔离法延续了半个多世纪，直到1954年最高法院判决布朗诉托皮卡教育局案及此后国会于1964年通过的民权法、1965年通过的投票权法后，南部各州实施的种族隔离法才彻底消失。 (zh) El cas Plessy contra Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896), va ser una important decisió del Tribunal Suprem dels Estats Units que va confirmar la constitucionalitat de les lleis de segregació racial per a instal·lacions públiques sempre que les instal·lacions segregades fossin iguals de qualitat, una doctrina que va arribar a ser coneguda com "separats però iguals". La decisió va legitimar les moltes lleis estatals que restablien la segregació racial que s'havia aprovat al Sud dels Estats Units després de la fi de la reconstrucció (1865-1877). (ca) Plessy v. Ferguson ist ein 1896 vom Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten entschiedener Fall, der als Grundsatzentscheidung in der Geschichte des Gerichts gilt. Das Gericht hatte darüber zu entscheiden, ob ein Gesetz des Staates Louisiana, das getrennte Abteile für Bürger weißer und schwarzer Hautfarbe in Eisenbahnzügen vorschrieb, gegen die Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten verstoße. Es verneinte dies mit sieben zu einer Richterstimme und erklärte damit die Bereitstellung getrennter Einrichtungen für Weiße und Schwarze unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen für zulässig. Durch dieses Urteil wurde damit de facto das Prinzip Separate but equal, also „Getrennt aber gleich“, als Basis der Rassentrennung in den Südstaaten etabliert. (de) El caso Plessy contra Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) es una decisión legal en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en el que se decidió mantener la constitucionalidad de la segregación racial incluso en lugares públicos (en especial en redes ferroviarias) bajo la doctrina de «Separados pero iguales». Después de que la corte diese la orden, el Comité de Ciudadanos (New Orleans Comité des Citoyens) emprendió un pleito y arrestó a a causa de la ley racial de Luisiana, Plessy replicó, (es) Plessy v. Ferguson (Plessy contre Ferguson) est un arrêt de la Cour suprême des États-Unis, (arrêt N° 163 U.S. 537) rendu le 18 mai 1896. Il est parfois cité simplement comme Plessy. Cet arrêt autorise les États du Sud à imposer par la loi des mesures de ségrégation raciale, pourvu que les conditions offertes aux divers groupes « raciaux » par cette ségrégation soient égales, doctrine appelée « separate but equal » (séparés mais égaux) qui dans son effectivité perpétuera des inégalités de fait. Les diverses inégalités constatées dans différents domaines (scolarité, transports publics, culture, logement, etc.) vont être reprises par des avocats du mouvement des droits civiques, plus spécialement de la National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) pour faire valoir qu'el (fr) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal". The decision legitimized the many state laws re-establishing racial segregation that had been passed in the American South after the end of the Reconstruction era (1865–1877). (en) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896), adalah dari Mahkamah Agung AS yang menyatakan bahwa undang-undang segregasi rasial tidak melanggar Konstitusi AS selama fasilitas untuk setiap ras adalah sama kualitasnya, sebuah doktrin hukum yang kemudian dikenal sebagai "terpisah tetapi setara" (separate but equal). Putusan tersebut melegitimasi banyak undang-undang negara bagian yang menetapkan segregasi rasial yang sebelumnya telah disahkan di Amerika Serikat bagian Selatan setelah berakhirnya Era Rekonstruksi (1865–1877). (in) Plessy v. Ferguson (de 1896) foi um caso marcante decidido pela Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos que decidiu sobre a constitucionalidade do direito dos estados da União de impor a segregação racial em locais públicos sob a doutrina do "separate but equal" ("separados mas iguais"). (pt) Плесси против Фергюсона (англ. Plessy v. Ferguson) 163 U.S. 537 (1896) — решение Верховного суда США, юридически оформившее расовую сегрегацию и подтвердившее её соответствие американской конституции. В 1892 году Гомер Плесси (Homer Plessy), который на 1/8 был негром, сел в поезде в вагон для белых. По законам Луизианы, он был арестован. Плесси обратился в суд, считая, что власти штата нарушают Четырнадцатую поправку к Конституции США, которая гарантирует равенство граждан перед законом. Плесси подал апелляцию в Верховный суд США, который в 1896 году постановил, что разделение граждан на чернокожих и белых не нарушает конституцию. (ru) |
| rdfs:label | Plessy v. Ferguson (en) Plessy contra Ferguson (ca) Plessy vs. Ferguson (cs) Plessy v. Ferguson (de) Caso Plessy contra Ferguson (es) Plessy v. Ferguson (in) Plessy contro Ferguson (it) Plessy v. Ferguson (fr) 플레시 대 퍼거슨 사건 (ko) プレッシー対ファーガソン裁判 (ja) Caso Plessy v. Ferguson (pt) Плесси против Фергюсона (ru) 普莱西诉弗格森案 (zh) |
| owl:differentFrom | dbr:Plessey |
| owl:sameAs | freebase:Plessy v. Ferguson yago-res:Plessy v. Ferguson http://sw.cyc.com/concept/Mx4rI4-8uFiTQ82bAr5BSXixWQ wikidata:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-ca:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-cs:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-de:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-es:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-fi:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-fr:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-he:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-id:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-it:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-ja:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-ka:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-ko:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-pt:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-ru:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-simple:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-tr:Plessy v. Ferguson dbpedia-zh:Plessy v. Ferguson https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4qUbt |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom | wikipedia-en:Plessy_v._Ferguson?oldid=1122165170&ns=0 |
| foaf:depiction | wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/JudgeJMHarlan.jpg wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/ColoredDrinking.jpg wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/JimCrowCar2.jpg wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Portrait_of_Henry_Billings_Brown.jpg |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf | wikipedia-en:Plessy_v._Ferguson |
| foaf:name | Homer A. Plessy v. John H. Ferguson (en) |
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates of | dbr:Ferguson |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of | dbr:Homer_Plessey_Case dbr:163_U.S._537 dbr:Plescy_v._Ferguson dbr:Plessy_V._Ferguson dbr:Plessy_v._Fergusen dbr:Plessy_v._ferguson dbr:Plessy_v_Fergusen dbr:Plessy_v_Ferguson dbr:Plessey_v_Ferguson dbr:Plessy dbr:Plessey_v._Ferguson dbr:Plessey_v._Fergusson dbr:Plessey_v_Fergusson dbr:Plessy_Decision dbr:Plessy_Vs._Ferguson dbr:Plessy_v._Ferguerson dbr:Plessy_v._Fergusson dbr:Plessy_v_Fergusson dbr:Plessy_v_ferguson dbr:Plessy_versus_Ferguson dbr:Plessy_vs._Fergusen dbr:Plessy_vs._Ferguson dbr:Plessy_vs._ferguson dbr:Plessy_vs_Ferguson dbr:Plesy_vs_Fergeson |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of | dbr:American_Negro_Academy dbr:American_ghettos dbr:American_librarianship_and_human_rights dbr:Presidencies_of_Grover_Cleveland dbr:Robert_Morris_(lawyer) dbr:Robert_Sengstacke_Abbott dbr:Rock_Creek_Cemetery dbr:Rodolphe_Desdunes dbr:Rosa_Parks dbr:Rufus_W._Peckham dbr:Samuel_F._Phillips dbr:Savage_Inequalities dbr:Scalawag dbr:Scientific_racism dbr:List_of_University_of_Rochester_people dbr:Mendez_vs._Westminster:_For_All_the_Children dbr:Racial_politics dbr:Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Beaverdam_Depot dbr:Benjamin_F._Roberts dbr:Berea_College_v._Kentucky dbr:Bizzell_Memorial_Library dbr:Black_Codes_(United_States) dbr:Black_Southerners dbr:Bolling_v._Sharpe dbr:Boyle_County,_Kentucky dbr:Brian:_Portrait_of_a_Dog dbr:David_J._Brewer dbr:Denmark_Vesey dbr:Anticanon dbr:History_of_the_Southern_United_States dbr:History_of_the_United_States_(1945–1964) dbr:Homer_Plessey_Case dbr:Horace_Gray dbr:John_W._Dwinelle dbr:Joseph_H._Stuart dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_163 dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_211 dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_95 dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Fuller_Court dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Warren_Court dbr:Robert_H._Jackson dbr:Robert_L._Carter dbr:Charles_E._Fenner dbr:Charles_Erasmus_Fenner dbr:United_States_v._Vaello_Madero dbr:University_of_Kentucky dbr:University_of_Rochester dbr:University_of_Texas_School_of_Law dbr:Day_Law dbr:Deculturalization dbr:Index_of_racism-related_articles dbr:Inez_Beverly_Prosser dbr:Institute_Catholique dbr:Institutional_racism dbr:James_A._Washington_Jr. dbr:May_18 dbr:List_of_landmark_African-American_legislation dbr:List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States dbr:List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions dbr:List_of_people_from_Michigan dbr:John_Ferguson dbr:The_New_Jim_Crow dbr:School_segregation_in_the_United_States dbr:Toutorsky_Mansion dbr:Paul_Trévigne dbr:Timeline_of_African-American_history dbr:Timeline_of_United_States_history_(1860–1899) dbr:Timeline_of_the_civil_rights_movement dbr:163_U.S._537 dbr:Collins_J._Seitz dbr:Constitutional_colorblindness dbr:Corrigan_v._Buckley dbr:Critical_race_theory dbr:Massachusetts_Supreme_Judicial_Court dbr:Master_status dbr:Mayville,_New_York dbr:McCants_Stewart dbr:McLaurin_v._Oklahoma_State_Regents dbr:Melville_Fuller dbr:Mendez_v._Westminster dbr:Saint_Louis_Cemetery dbr:Gebhart_v._Belton dbr:Louisville,_New_Orleans_&_Texas_Railway_Co._v._Mississippi dbr:New_Negro dbr:No_Way_Back_(1976_film) dbr:Oppositional_culture dbr:Racial_discrimination_in_jury_selection dbr:Racial_diversity_in_United_States_schools dbr:1870_Missouri_State_Colored_People's_Educational_Convention dbr:1892 dbr:1892_in_rail_transport dbr:1892_in_the_United_States dbr:1896 dbr:1896_in_the_United_States dbr:Citation_signal dbr:Civil_Rights_Cases dbr:Civil_rights_movement dbr:Civil_rights_movement_(1865–1896) dbr:Clarence_Thomas dbr:Education_reform dbr:Edward_Douglass_White dbr:Elisha_Winfield_Green dbr:Freedom_Riders dbr:Fuller_Court dbr:Gentlemen's_Agreement_of_1907 dbr:George_Herriman dbr:George_Shiras_Jr. dbr:George_W._Haley dbr:Missouri_ex_rel._Gaines_v._Canada dbr:Murray_v._Pearson dbr:NAACP dbr:Nadir_of_American_race_relations dbr:Naim_v._Naim dbr:Constitution_of_Louisiana dbr:Creoles_of_color dbr:Equal_Protection_Clause dbr:Equal_justice_under_law dbr:St._Augustine_Church_(New_Orleans) dbr:Plescy_v._Ferguson dbr:Plessy_V._Ferguson dbr:Plessy_v._Fergusen dbr:Plessy_v._ferguson dbr:Plessy_v_Fergusen dbr:Plessy_v_Ferguson dbr:Anti-Chinese_sentiment dbr:Antonin_Scalia dbr:Lee_D._Baker dbr:Linda_Carol_Brown dbr:List_of_Alpha_Phi_Alpha_brothers dbr:Lloyd_L._Gaines dbr:Lochner_v._New_York dbr:Louisiana_French dbr:Loving_v._Virginia dbr:Lum_v._Rice dbr:Stephen_Johnson_Field dbr:Stone_Court dbr:Color_terminology_for_race dbr:Colored_Teachers_State_Association_of_Texas dbr:Comité_des_Citoyens dbr:Fugitives_(poets) dbr:Keys_v._Carolina_Coach_Co. dbr:Plessey_v_Ferguson dbr:Plessis dbr:States'_rights dbr:Massive_resistance dbr:McDonogh_Three dbr:Brown_v._Board_of_Education dbr:Bruce_Fein dbr:Buddy_Fletcher dbr:Bywater,_New_Orleans dbr:Adams_Morgan dbr:Thurgood_Marshall dbr:Walter_A._Huxman dbr:Warren_Court dbr:White_America,_Inc. dbr:William_Rehnquist dbr:Williams_v._Mississippi dbr:Dual_federalism dbr:June_7 dbr:Landmark_Cases:_Historic_Supreme_Court_Decisions dbr:Lawson_Thomas dbr:List_of_14th_amendment_cases dbr:List_of_Centre_College_people dbr:Samuel_Alito_Supreme_Court_nomination dbr:A._P._Tureaud dbr:Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States dbr:African_Americans dbr:Albion_W._Tourgée dbr:Alexander_Thomas_Augusta dbr:Alpha_Phi_Alpha dbr:42nd_Wisconsin_Legislature dbr:Cumming_v._Richmond_County_Board_of_Education dbr:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford dbr:Earl_Warren dbr:East_Louisiana_Railroad dbr:Edgefield,_South_Carolina dbr:Edmond_Dédé dbr:Eufaula,_Alabama dbr:Eureka_Springs,_Arkansas dbr:Faubourg_Treme:_The_Untold_Story_of_Black_New_Orleans dbr:Federalism_in_the_United_States dbr:Felix_Frankfurter dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Browder_v._Gayle dbr:P._B._S._Pinchback dbr:Pace_v._Alabama dbr:Parents_Involved_in_Community_Schools_v._Seattle_School_District_No._1 dbr:Charlotte_L._Brown dbr:Daniel_Garrison_Brinton dbr:Disfranchisement_after_the_Reconstruction_era dbr:Education_policy_of_the_United_States dbr:Education_segregation_in_Indiana dbr:Education_segregation_in_Wisconsin dbr:Educational_inequality dbr:Educational_inequality_in_the_United_States dbr:Gloria_Ladson-Billings dbr:Government_by_Judiciary dbr:History_of_Chinese_Americans dbr:History_of_Louisiana dbr:History_of_Maryland dbr:History_of_New_Orleans dbr:History_of_Richmond,_Virginia dbr:History_of_education_in_the_United_States dbr:History_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:History_of_the_United_States_government dbr:Judicial_aspects_of_race_in_the_United_States dbr:Kenneth_and_Mamie_Clark dbr:Louisiana_Creole_people dbr:The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book dbr:Grutter_v._Bollinger dbr:Hall_v._Decuir dbr:Harold_Hitz_Burton dbr:Harry_L._Carrico dbr:Henry_Billings_Brown dbr:Henry_O._Wagoner dbr:History_of_African_Americans_in_Kentucky dbr:James_F._Wilson dbr:James_Harlan_(Kentucky_politician) dbr:Tape_v._Hurley dbr:The_Cabildo dbr:Jim_Crow_economy dbr:Jim_Crow_laws dbr:Ferguson dbr:Simkins_v._City_of_Greensboro dbr:Arlington_County,_Virginia dbr:Atlanta_Conference_of_Negro_Problems dbr:African-American_Vernacular_English_and_education dbr:African_Americans_in_South_Carolina dbr:Charles_Hamilton_Houston dbr:Charles_Sterling_Hutcheson dbr:John_Bel_Edwards dbr:John_Cornyn dbr:John_Howard_Ferguson dbr:John_Marshall_Harlan dbr:John_Marshall_Harlan_II dbr:June_Shagaloff_Alexander dbr:Lafargue_Clinic dbr:Lafayette_Cemetery_No._1 dbr:Black_Catholicism dbr:Black_land_loss_in_the_United_States dbr:Black_players_in_professional_American_football dbr:Black_school dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Missouri dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Sweatt_v._Painter dbr:George_W._McLaurin dbr:Homer_Plessy dbr:Test_case_(law) dbr:Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:White_flight dbr:Zelma_Henderson dbr:Reconstruction_Amendments dbr:Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials dbr:Discrimination_in_the_United_States dbr:Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization dbr:Dovey_Johnson_Roundtree dbr:Philip_Elman dbr:Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey dbr:Plessy dbr:South_Carolina_in_the_civil_rights_movement dbr:Civil_rights_movement_(1896–1954) dbr:Civil_rights_movements dbr:Kirkwood_School_District dbr:Korematsu_v._United_States dbr:Anti-Chinese_sentiment_in_the_United_States dbr:Milton_Joseph_Cunningham dbr:Nashville_sit-ins dbr:Nathan_Clifford dbr:Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States) dbr:New_Orleans dbr:New_Year's_Day_March dbr:Oliver_Brown_(American_activist) dbr:Oliver_Hill_(attorney) dbr:One-drop_rule dbr:Rachel_B._Noel dbr:Racial_color_blindness dbr:Racial_segregation dbr:Reconstruction_era dbr:Seybourn_Harris_Lynne dbr:Wong_Wing_v._United_States dbr:Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins dbr:Samuel_Hamilton_Buskirk dbr:Malcolm_Bailey_(artist) dbr:Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States dbr:September_1913_(month) dbr:New_Orleans_school_desegregation_crisis dbr:Niagara_Movement dbr:Roberts_v._City_of_Boston dbr:List_of_the_oldest_courthouses_in_the_United_States dbr:List_of_topics_related_to_the_African_diaspora dbr:Lulu_White dbr:Oklahoma_Territorial_Legislature dbr:Vulcan_Society dbr:Royal_Ice_Cream_sit-in dbr:Flexner_Report dbr:Philadelphia_Pythians dbr:Multicultural_education dbr:Separate_Car_Act dbr:Residential_segregation_in_the_United_States |
| is rdfs:seeAlso of | dbr:White_America,_Inc. |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of | wikipedia-en:Plessy_v._Ferguson |
