The following are my takeaways from this week's mock trial...
Pictured Above, Henry Billings Brown
Wrote the Majority Opinion on Case
Context
State of Louisiana has law of 1892, requiring separate railcars for white/black. The party of intrest Plessy, who is 1/8th black, bought first class ticket, and is subsequently arrested. He then sues under 14th amendment. The decision of this case would hold a precedent that would hold onto the United States for decades. What will their arguments be?
Main Arguments
First, the team of lawyers supporting Plessy's argument, put forward their strongest stance, that being this standing practice was arbitrary and capricious. In other words, it is based of the whim of the white southerners who want to distance themselves from black people, and it falls under no real logic that could ever be followed.
For example, the fact that Plessy himself, was 1/8th black, would mean he would be required to separate himself into hypothetical 1/8ths, each to ride their own respective train cars. This is not what was expected of him. Instead, the law really meant that that 1/8th had infected the other seven so that he was not worthy to sit in the white car.
This proves that the law did not see both sides as equal, but rather, looked down upon the black population. This in turn, violates the 14th amendment.
On the other side of the court, were those defending the state. Setting aside the clear evil of the past, their main argument is as follows.
Plessy did not go into this situation with "clean hands", or in other words, he knew he was breaking the established law when he went to buy the first-class ticket. Therefore, they did not want to set the precedent that one could break whichever law they found to be unconstitutional.
Furthermore, this idea of separation was the norm, or standard for society at the time, and the law was reinforcing that established societal precedent. In this time of racial division and anger, it was clear they feared the quick integration of both races.
Outcome
The Judge ruled in favor of the state, upholding the law, and the actual events of history. As we know now, this ruling allowed for the wave of Jim-Crow laws that followed for a century after this ruling.
I learned quite a bit in this case, mainly the existence of the "clean hands", doctrine mentioned above, and the precedent that forms it. Plessy v. Ferguson was always spoken about in history classes as a event in history, but never as a legal one. I found it to be saddening, and fascinating.
Comments
Post a Comment