The Constitution does not specifically say either one, so the Court is interpreting the law, but not doing it in the same way each time. The majority does not seem to understand the significance of its decision as far as other aspects of life. It dismisses the idea that this law would create additional discriminatory laws. The minority believes that "if a state can prescribe, as a rule of civil conduct, that whites and blacks shall not travel as passengers in the same railroad coach, why may it not so regulate the use of the streets of its cities and towns as to compel white citizens to keep on one side of a street and black citizens to keep on the other?"

Finally, the minority opinion also understands the relevance of the case more than the majority. As it points out, "In some of the states, a dominant race -- a superior class of citizens, which...

This decision would take that even further and divide the status of the races even more. Also, the minority opinion points out that the blacks were specifically protected by the 13th and 14th Amendments, but this decision actually treated the Chinese people better than the blacks.
The case of Plessy v. Ferguson said that 'separate but equal' was acceptable in the United States. The majority opinion was not well though-out and lacked the accuracy, depth, significance and relevance of the minority opinion. Justice Harlan seemed to better understand exactly how the case would affect blacks in America and he was right. The Court should have listened to him from the beginning.