Louisville, New Orleans, and Texas Railway Co. v. Mississippi
Louisville, New Orleans, and Texas Railway Co. v. Mississippi is a pivotal Supreme Court case decided in 1890 that addressed issues of racial segregation in public accommodations. The Court upheld a Mississippi law mandating that railroads provide “equal, but separate accommodations” for African Americans and white passengers. The Louisville, New Orleans, and Texas Railway Company challenged the law, asserting it imposed undue financial burdens and interfered with interstate commerce. However, the majority opinion, written by Justice David J. Brewer, concluded that the requirement was permissible, reflecting the era's acceptance of the "separate but equal" doctrine. In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that the law infringed upon the federal government's authority to regulate commerce. This case exemplifies the legal framework supporting segregation during the Jim Crow era and its long-lasting implications on civil rights and racial equality in the United States. The ruling set a precedent for subsequent legal challenges to segregation, influencing the social landscape and legal interpretations for decades to come.
Louisville, New Orleans, and Texas Railway Co. v. Mississippi
Date: March 3, 1890
Citation: 133 U.S. 587
Issues: Commerce clause; separate but equal doctrine
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law mandating separate but equal accommodations on a railroad, despite its effect on interstate commerce.
By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi statute requiring railroads to provide “equal, but separate accommodations” for African Americans and whites. The Louisville, New Orleans, and Texas Railway Company found this expensive and alleged the statute interfered with interstate commerce, but Justice David J. Brewer, who wrote the majority opinion, could see nothing wrong with requiring a railroad to add a car every time it crossed over into Mississippi. Brewer, as typical of the Court in that age, did not even comment on Mississippi’s position that this law affected only intrastate commerce. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, maintaining that the state was interfering with the federal government’s right to regulate commerce.
