Which case justified segregation and the principle of 'separate but equal'?

Which case justified segregation and the principle of 'separate but equal'?

• A. Brown v Board of Education
• B. Plessy v. Ferguson
• C. Gideon v. Wainwright
• D. Miranda v. Arizona

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is how the law treated racial separation in public life. In 1896 the Supreme Court ruled that states could require separate facilities for different races as long as those facilities were considered equal in quality. This established the doctrine of "separate but equal," which meant segregation itself was allowed if the facilities were deemed equal. That ruling gave legal cover to many Jim Crow laws that kept Black and White people apart in schools, trains, restrooms, and other public spaces for decades. This framework was later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, which determined that segregation in public schools is inherently unequal and unconstitutional, helping to dismantle the separate but equal idea. The other two cases you mentioned, Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, focus on individual rights in criminal cases—right to a lawyer and right to be informed of rights—not on segregation or equal protection.

The main idea here is how the law treated racial separation in public life. In 1896 the Supreme Court ruled that states could require separate facilities for different races as long as those facilities were considered equal in quality. This established the doctrine of "separate but equal," which meant segregation itself was allowed if the facilities were deemed equal. That ruling gave legal cover to many Jim Crow laws that kept Black and White people apart in schools, trains, restrooms, and other public spaces for decades.

This framework was later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, which determined that segregation in public schools is inherently unequal and unconstitutional, helping to dismantle the separate but equal idea. The other two cases you mentioned, Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, focus on individual rights in criminal cases—right to a lawyer and right to be informed of rights—not on segregation or equal protection.