Read the excerpt from the US Supreme court case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).
The statute of Louisiana, acts of 1890, c. 111, requiring railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in that
State, to provide equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races, by providing two or more
passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure
separate accommodations; and providing that no person shall be permitted to occupy seats in coaches other than the
ones assigned to them, on account of the race they belong to; and requiring the officer of the passenger train to assign
each passenger to the coach or compartment assigned for the race to which he or she belong; and imposing fines or
imprisonment upon passengers insisting on going into a coach or compartment other than the one set aide for the race
to which he or she belongs; and conferring upon officers of the train power to refuse to carry on the train passengers
refusing to occupy the coach or compartment assigned to them, and exempting the railway company from liability for
such refusal, are not in conflict with the provisions either of the Thirteenth Amendment or of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
Which best explains why the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court's ruling allowed states to deny equal protection to any person within its jurisdiction.
Since the 14th Amendment did not make concessions for people born outside the US, the Supreme Court's decision could
not be applied.
The Sunromar urt'e doricinn nave individual etatoc the froorlom to make their mun lewe in relation to non White