Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 83

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

35 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

system in the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratifi-
cation,  proponents  urged  a  “separate  but  equal”  regime.
They met with initial success, ossifying the segregationist
view for over a half century.  As this Court said in Plessy: 

“A  statute  which  implies  merely  a  legal  distinction 
between  the  white  and  colored  races—a  distinction 
which  is  founded  in  the  color  of  the  two  races,  and 
which must always exist so long as white men are dis-
tinguished  from  the  other  race  by  color—has  no  ten-
dency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or 
reestablish a state of involuntary servitude.”  163 U. S., 
at 543. 

Such a statement, of course, is precisely antithetical to the 
notion that all men, regardless of the color of their skin, are
born  equal  and  must  be  treated  equally  under  the  law.
Only one Member of the Court adhered to the equality prin-
ciple; Justice Harlan, standing alone in dissent, wrote: “Our
constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates 
classes among citizens.  In respect of civil rights, all citizens 
are equal before the law.”  Id., at 559.  Though Justice Har-
lan rightly predicted that Plessy would, “in time, prove to 
be quite as pernicious as the decision made . . . in the Dred 
Scott case,” the Plessy rule persisted for over a half century. 
Ibid.  While it remained in force, Jim Crow laws prohibiting 
blacks  from  entering  or  utilizing  public  facilities  such  as
schools,  libraries,  restaurants,  and  theaters  sprang  up
across the South. 

This Court rightly reversed course in Brown v. Board of 
Education.  The Brown appellants—those challenging seg-
regated schools—embraced the equality principle, arguing 
that “[a] racial criterion is a constitutional irrelevance, and 
is not saved from condemnation even though dictated by a
sincere desire to avoid the possibility of violence or race fric-
tion.”  Brief for Appellants in Brown v. Board of Education,