In the case of Crichton v. Wingfield, 1921, the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a Louisiana law that allowed for separate but equal facilities for African Americans and whites violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiff in this case, an African American man named James Crichton, argued that he had been denied access to a public park in Shreveport because of his race. He claimed that there were no equivalent facilities available for people of his race as required by state law and thus it constituted discrimination under federal law. The court ruled against Crichton stating that while segregation itself might not violate the Fourteenth Amendment if truly "separate but equal" facilities were provided; however, they did not find sufficient evidence to prove such inequality existed in this particular instance. Therefore, they upheld Louisiana’s racial segregation laws on grounds that it didn't infringe upon constitutional rights as long as comparable amenities were accessible to both races.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Crichton v. Wingfield argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important factors related to property rights and inheritance laws. The dissenting justices believed that the court should have given more weight to state law, which clearly outlined how property should be divided among heirs. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a key legal document involved in the case, arguing that it had been misread or misunderstood by their colleagues on the bench. Furthermore, they felt that certain evidence presented during trial had been unfairly dismissed or overlooked by those who voted for reversal. Overall, these justices were concerned about potential implications for future cases involving similar issues if this ruling were allowed to stand unchallenged.