Constitutional Equality: Justice Harlan's Dissent

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) constitutionally upheld racial segregation in all public accommodation facilities all over the United States of America. However, legal segregation was allowed so long as there was a “separate but equal” doctrine in the accommodations ( Hutchison, 2015). Plessy cited the argument of the violation of her constitutional rights as stipulated by the 14th Amendment when she was forced to move from the white railroad car and sit on the black railroad car train section. The Supreme Court did not affirm her basis of argument because the 14th Amendment was ridiculous in stipulating the idea of social inequality between races. The Court asserted that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was not meant to make Blacks and Whites equal in every political or social aspect. According to the Supreme Court, the existing segregation was not the leading cause of the problem because it did not imply that people of color were inferior to whites ( Hutchison, 2015). In his dissent over the ruling, Justice Harlan argued that by legalizing segregation, the tenets of equality under the law were being countered and, therefore, cannot be justified in any legal grounds. Justice Harlan said, " The arbitrary separation of citizens based on race while they are on a public highway is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution” ( Hutchison, 2015). The case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) made the majority of the Supreme Court concur with Justice Harlan's arguments on segregation. The Court upheld that the principles of “separate but equal” were “inherently unequal” in public education. Justice Earl Warren wrote that Brown was “deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment” ( Hutchison, 2015). In the 1883 ruling, the United States Supreme Court unanimously (8-1) decided that Congress lacked the authority to regulate the dealings of private individuals and businesses ( Graglia, 2014). The court argued that the 13th and 14th Amendments did not give Congress power to make such regulations. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Civil Acts of 1875 was unconstitutional because it infringed on personal freedom of choice. Justice Bradley wrote that “the 13th Amendment has respect, not to the distinction of the race..... but slavery and involuntary servitude” ( Graglia, 2014). Bradley further added that the legislative power also extended to the public incidences of slavery and abolished involuntary servitude. Therefore, the denial of equal accommodation in public businesses did not impose a badge of slavery upon any party. Unfortunately, the Civil Rights Act of 1875 only managed to infringe on the rights of individuals protected from state aggression, as pointed out in the 14th Amendment ( Graglia, 2014). Five different but closely related Civil Rights Cases had unified rulings. The cases include United States v. Nichols, United States v. Stanley, United States v. Ryan, United States v. Singelton, and Robinson v. Memphis & Charleston. In the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1984), the plaintiff refused to serve African Americans. The government wanted to enforce the Civil Rights of 1964 against the Motel. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision District Court which stated it was illegal for the motel to refuse to serve patrons of African American descent because the Civil Rights Act is Constitutional. The rationale of the decision was based on the fact that Congress had the authority to pass laws that regulated the affairs of businesses. Commerce Clause gave Congress power to mandate laws that prohibited private establishments serving the public to discriminate against people based on their racial backgrounds ( Graglia, 2014). 

References 

Graglia, L. A. (2014). The supreme court's perversion of the 1964 civil rights act.  Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y,  37, 103. 

Hutchison, P. (2015). The Harlan Renaissance: Colorblindness and White Domination in Justice John Marshall Harlan’s Dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.  Journal of African American Studies,  19 (4), 426-447.