The landmark case that desegregated schools was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, a 1954 case in which the Supreme Court Justices unanimously ruled segregation in the public schools was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren, in writing the Court opinion, declared "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" because they violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. This overturned the 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson, which held the concept of "separate but equal" was constitutional.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896)

The state of Louisiana passed a law requiring separate railroad coach cars for African-Americans and Caucasians. Plessy, who was seven-eighths Caucasian, took a seat in the "whites-only" car, refused to move to the "black" car, and was subsequently arrested.

The case was upheld in the lower courts, then petitioned to the US Supreme Court for review in light of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

The Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Brown, held that state-sanctioned segregation was constitutional, as long as the separate facilities were equal. As precedent, Brown cited both the Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883), which determined the 14th Amendment applied only to states, but not to private individuals or businesses, and the fact that Washington D.C. public schools, under the rule of federal government, was already practicing segregation in education. Justice Brown further concluded that segregation in public accommodations did not constitute discrimination.

Justice Harlan, in an impassioned and prophetic lone dissent, wrote (in part):

"In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case. It was adjudged in that case that the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves were not included nor intended to be included under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and could not claim any of the rights and privileges which that instrument provided for and secured to citizens of the United States; that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they were "considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them."

and

"The recent amendments of the Constitution [referring to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments], it was supposed, had eradicated these principles from our institutions. But it seems that we have yet, in some of the States, a dominant race -- a superior class of citizens, which assumes to regulate the enjoyment of civil rights, common to all citizens, upon the basis of race. The present decision, it may well be apprehended, will not only stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal and irritating, upon the admitted rights of colored citizens, but will encourage the belief that it is possible, by means of state enactments, to defeat the beneficent purposes which the people of the United States had in view when they adopted the recent amendments of the Constitution, by one of which the blacks of this country were made citizens of the United States and of the States in which they respectively reside, and whose privileges and immunities, as citizens, the States are forbidden to abridge.

"Sixty millions of whites are in no danger from the presence here of eight millions of blacks. The destinies of the two races in this country are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the common government of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law. What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state enactments which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens. That, as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation as was enacted in Louisiana."

and

"The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race while they are on a public highway is a badge of servitude [in violation of the 13th Amendment] wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds."

The majority opinion gave rise to the "separate but equal" doctrine that invaded nearly every aspect of African-Americans' lives. Plessy represented the South's reaction to, and contravention of, the 13th and 14th Amendments. The Court's decision gave tacit permission to the establishment of Jim Crow laws, which violated the civil rights of African-Americans in a way not anticipated by the Constitution.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954)

Brown was a consolidation of five cases addressing racial discrimination inherent in the "separate but equal" doctrine. The NAACP argued that prohibiting African-Americans from attending then-all-white schools was de jure (legalized) discrimination prohibited by the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

The question before the Court: "Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?"

In a unanimous decision, the Warren Court concluded that the equalization of tangible factors, such as facilities and instructional materials, did not foster equality because intangible factors, such as segregation itself, was stigmatizing and created an inferior class of citizens.

Brown v. Board of Education, (1954) effectively gutted the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896), and established that "separate but equal" is not equal.

Although Brown began the process of integration, it did not effect immediate change. The Court convened a year later to devise a practical method of facilitating desegregation, a topic not addressed until Brown II (Brown v. Board of Education, 349 US 294 (1955).

In Brown II, the Court's instructions were vague and left too much leeway for school districts to delay action. The individual cases were remanded back to their District Courts for orders and enforcement (the US Supreme Court has no enforcement power), with the instruction to "admit the parties to these cases to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed."

Unfortunately, the federal government did little to enforce the Supreme Court ruling until Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

While society has changed dramatically since Plessy and even since Brown, human nature has not. The quest for equality is an ongoing struggle that demands vigilance and effort from all who support its goals.

For more information on Brown v. Board of Education,see Related Links, below.

No, judicial activism caused African-Americans to lose the civil rights guaranteed them under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

The purpose of the Reconstruction amendments was to end slavery, formally extend citizenship, apply constitutional protections, and allow African-Americans (men; women didn't have suffrage yet) the right to vote.

While the Constitution originally applied only to the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment offered a legal means of extending US constitutional protection to the States, and provided Congress with authority to enforce the Amendment's provisions through legislation. Congress demonstrated a desire to support the equalization process the States initiated by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 read (in part):

"Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.

"...That any person who shall violate the foregoing section by denying to any citizen, except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race and color, and regardless of any previous condition of servitude, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in said section enumerated, or by aiding or inciting such denial, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved thereby...and shall also, for every such offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than one year..."

The Supreme Court, however, chose to construe the new amendments in an intellectually contorted way not in keeping with the intent of the Legislative branch or the States. This is the essence of judicial activism.

In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883), the US Supreme Court overturned the Civil Rights Act of 1875, declaring unconstitutional legislation preventing businesses and individuals from discriminating against African-Americans. The Waite Court held that Congress couldn't use the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause to pass legislation mandating equal treatment under the law (as the United States finally did in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968). This narrow ruling, which was later reinforced when the Court upheld as constitutional the "separate but equal" doctrine advanced under Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896).

These and similar decisions legally sanctioned discriminatory practices and encouraged proliferation of racist Jim Crow laws across the nation.

The Warren Court formally overturned the "separate but equal" precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) by holding segregation unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education,(1954). Although this decision is often cited as an example of judicial activism, in fact, the Court was correcting bad precedents created by an earlier activist Court.

Ruby Bridges was born on September 8, 1954 in Tylertown, Mississippi. At the age of four, she moved with her parents to New Orleans. When she was only six years old, her parents answered a call from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, volunteering Ruby as a student to participate in the integration of the public school system in New Orleans. She is the first black child to attend William Frantz Elementary School, as well as the first African American child to go to an all-white elementary school located in the South.

Ruby Bridges took her entrance test in the Spring of 1960. She was one of several kindergartners to take the test. Six students were chosen, and out of the six, two of them decided not to go through with it. Three of the remaining students were assigned to attend McDonough Elementary School, but Ruby was supposed to start school at William Frantz Elementary. Her father was not an advocate of the decision. He felt that the backlash would lead to problems for Ruby as well as problems for the family. Her mother felt very strongly that Ruby should be involved in this event, and she won the argument in the end. Ruby's mom understood the impact Ruby's involvement would have on African Americans in the future.

The day that she was supposed to integrate into William Frantz Elementary was on November 14, 1960. Ruby remembers that there was a huge crowd of people surrounding the school, and she attributed it to Mardi Gras. The people were shouting and throwing things. She did not understand initially that the things were being yelled and directed towards her as a black child daring to enter "their" school. Once Ruby made it into the school, escorted by federal marshals, she spent the entire day of the first day of school sitting in the office with her mother. During the day, parents continued to show up, pulling their children out of school, as they refused for their children to be educated alongside a black child. All of the teachers with the exception of one, Mrs. Barbara Henry, refused to teach Ruby. She became Ruby's teacher, and she was from Boston, Massachusetts. Her only pupil for the entire year was Ruby.

Ruby and Mrs. Henry became very close, but Mrs. Henry's decision to teach Ruby caused her to be ostracized from the rest of the staff who treated her badly.

Every day, Ruby continued to walk through the jeering crowds of people. One woman would be out there every day threatening to poison Ruby. Because of this, she was not allowed to eat food from the school, but only food from home. There was another woman in the crowd who held a coffin that had a black baby doll inside, and Ruby remarked that this scared her more than anything else. Ruby's mother suggested that she begin praying on her way to school, so Ruby did do this. On one occasion, Ruby stopped in the middle of the crowd and appeared to be talking to herself. When Mrs. Henry asked her what she was doing, she learned that Ruby had forgotten to say her prayers, and so she had stopped prior to entering the building.

There was a child psychiatrist named Robert Coles who was to provide counseling for Ruby while she was at William Frantz Elementary. Coles met with her once a week in her home and later wrote a book about her, called, The Story of Ruby Bridges.Much of what her father anticipated would happen to Ruby and to the family did happen. Her father lost his job. Her grandparents, sharecroppers living in Mississippi, were sent off the land. There were many death threats to Ruby and the family. They were supported, however, by the black community who would help her father get a new job, babysit, watch the house to protect it, and walk behind the marshals' car.

At the conclusion of her first year, there were a few white children who were attending William Frantz School, but they were not with Ruby. Instead, they had their own classes as segregation continued. Ruby learned that there were other children attending, and she did not understand why she could not go to class with them or play with them. There were some white families who wanted their children to continue with school at William Frantz Elementary, but those white children and their parents were treated with the same scorn and threats of violence as Ruby and her family were dealing with, so some of them eventually gave up for fear for the safety of their families. At the conclusion of the year, Mrs. Henry was not asked back at William Frantz Elementary, and so she moved back to Boston, Massachusetts, to raise a family in a place where she felt things were "normal." She never forgot about Ruby. She kept a picture of the girl with so much courage on her bureau in her bedroom. Mrs. Henry and Ruby Bridges were reunited in adulthood.

Ruby Bridges is now Ruby Bridges Hall. She still lives in New Orleans today. For fifteen years, she worked as a travel agent, and then later became a full time mom to her four sons. She is currently the chair of the Ruby Bridges Foundation, which was created in 1999. The goal of the foundation is to teach tolerance, appreciation of differences, and respect. She has stated that she feels that racism is an adult disease that uses children to spread the disease. In 1993, she began to take care of her orphaned nieces who also attended William Frantz Elementary. She started working as a volunteer at the school. Bill Clinton awarded Ruby with the Presidential Citizens Medal in 2001. In 2006, a new elementary school was dedicated to Ruby Bridges in Alameda, California. In 2007, the Children's Museum of Indianapolis opened their new exhibit that chronicled the life of Ruby Bridges, Ryan White, and Anne Frank.