Ohio Historians Draw Parallels Between Recent Supreme Court Ruling and Jim Crow Era
Legal scholars are comparing the Supreme Court’s recent dismantling of voting rights protections to the infamous 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that established Jim Crow segregation.
COLUMBUS, OHIO — Ohio historians and legal scholars are drawing comparisons between a recent Supreme Court decision that dismantled key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that established the “separate but equal” doctrine 130 years ago.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, has been described by legal analysts as effectively ending the landmark voting rights legislation that protected minority voting access for more than six decades.
“There are obvious echoes between Louisiana v. Callais, in which Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion finished off the [1965 Voting Rights Act]…and the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson decision, in which the court blessed Jim Crow,” wrote Pema Levy in Mother Jones magazine on May 7.
Historical Parallels Emerge
Murray State University historians Brian Clardy and William Mulligan have identified troubling similarities between the two landmark cases separated by more than a century. According to the Ohio Capital Journal, both academics see the decisions as representing conservative jurisprudence that privileges white supremacy.
“Both decisions represent conservatism that privileges hate and white supremacy, Plessy after Reconstruction, Callais after landmark civil rights legislation in the 1960s,” the historians noted.
The timing of the recent Supreme Court decision coincides with the 130th anniversary of the Plessy v. Ferguson case, which occurred on May 18. That 1896 ruling established the legal foundation for racial segregation that would persist for more than half a century.
Kentucky’s ‘Great Dissenter’ Remembered
The anniversary has renewed attention to the lone dissenter in the Plessy case, Kentucky native John Marshall Harlan. Born into a wealthy slaveholding family in southern Mercer County, now Boyle County, in 1833, Harlan grew up to own slaves and had initially defended the South’s institution of slavery.
Despite his background, Harlan penned what would become known as one of the most prescient dissents in Supreme Court history. “Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,” he argued, adding that racial segregation “cannot be justified upon any legal grounds.”
James Klotter, author and Kentucky state historian, praised Harlan’s courage in standing alone against his fellow justices. “His dissent in the Plessy case is memorable, first, for the courage he displayed,” Klotter said. “Alone of the justices, he spoke for the future, for ‘the better angels of our nature,’ and for the rights of mankind.”
Modern Court Draws Criticism
Legal commentators have characterized the current Supreme Court’s approach as fundamentally similar to the court that decided Plessy v. Ferguson. “The Roberts court is in many respects a neoconfederate court, and it repeatedly applies the tactics and ideas of the 1880s and 1890s court, whose members likewise could not abide a robust vision of equality,” according to analysis published in Mother Jones.
The Louisiana v. Callais decision represents the culmination of years of legal challenges to voting rights protections that were first established during the civil rights era. The 1965 Voting Rights Act had required certain jurisdictions with histories of voting discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing their election laws.
The parallels between the two cases highlight ongoing tensions over federal versus state authority in protecting voting rights and civil liberties. Both rulings came during periods of significant social and political transition, with the earlier case following Reconstruction and the recent decision following decades of civil rights progress.
