Final answer:
The Supreme Court did not feel that Plessy's rights were being violated because it embraced the 'separate but equal' doctrine. They ruled that segregation was legal as long as the facilities for both races were equal. The subjective interpretation of racial inferiority was dismissed, and segregation was seen as aligning with societal customs.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Louisiana's segregation law, ruling that Homer Plessy's rights were not violated by the separate car act. The Court's decision was heavily influenced by the doctrine of "separate but equal", which maintained that segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination, provided that the segregated facilities for both whites and African Americans were equal in quality.
Despite Plessy's argument that his equal protection under the law was being compromised, the Court concluded that separation of races in public accommodations was permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment as long as facilities were not inferior for African Americans.
Moreover, the Court suggested that any assertion of racial inferiority associated with the segregation act was a subjective interpretation not inherent in the law itself. They argued that segregation was a part of established customs and traditions and served a social good by promoting public order.
This majority opinion effectively ratified de jure segregation and influenced civil rights cases for decades, until it was finally overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education.