{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01909307875894988, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010143198090692125, 'mean_word_length': 5.076086956521739, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Plessy in Perspective: Lofgren's View

In retrospect, the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1890s may be viewed as a watershed of American constitutional development during which were implanted the theoretical seeds of many subsequent major constitutional controversies. For during the 1890s, the nation witnessed a resurgence of federal judicial power that was to result in the assumption by the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary of a more central role in national policy making than they had ever before assumed. Perhaps most symbolic of the new role of the federal judiciary on the national scene was the invalidation of the income tax by the Supreme Court in 1895,1 a decision that was only reversed by the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution some 18 years later. Of more long-lasting significance, however, was the Supreme Court's broadening of the meaning of due process, especially under the Fourteenth Amendment, with the concomitant stretching of federal judicial power that that development entailed. In Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Co. v. Minnesota,2 the Court thus indicated that the reasonableness of a railroad rate-and by implication the reasonableness of state legislation generally-was ultimately a judicial question to be resolved by the interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, in such cases as AUgeyer v. Louisiana,3 the Court further broadened the meaning of due process by redefining the rights protected thereunder. The liberty of which individuals could not be deprived without due process of law, the Court said in AUgeyer and other cases, covered the limited