Which of the following was NOT an effect of the Plessy vs Ferguson decision * 1 point

Plessy vs Ferguson created an era of "legal segregation" in the South

Plessy vs Ferguson created an era known as "Jim Crow" where African Americans voted and held office at far lower rates and where violence towards African Americans increased

Plessy v Ferguson created a standard for racial equality for decades in America

Plessy vs Ferguson allowed all states to prevent African Americans from entering public and private places that also held white people

Plessy v Ferguson created a standard for racial equality for decades in America.

Explanation:

The 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v Ferguson was a result of the case between Homer Plessy, a mixed-race man, and the presiding justice Judge John Howard Ferguson. Plessy lost the case, with the judge upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation.

This case not only legalizes and justifies the constitutionality of maintaining racial segregation in public places. It also allows the implementation of the "Jim Crow" laws and allowed states to practice racial segregation. The one effect that is not part of the case is that it created a standard for racial equality in the country.

Thus, the correct answer is the third option.

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation: