Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other. Which statements summarize Justice Brown’s message? Check all that apply. Separation does not necessarily create inequality. Separation implies inferiority. Laws that permit separation can be constitutional. The law cannot permit separation to occur. Separation always creates inferiority.

Justice Brown's message can be summarized by the following statements:

1. Separation does not necessarily create inequality. 2. Laws that permit separation can be constitutional.

Extra: The statements you provided appear to be in the context of Plessy v. Ferguson, a landmark 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion, which stated that as long as the separate facilities for the separate races were equal, segregation did not constitute unlawful discrimination.

Justice Brown's argument was that the separation of races in public facilities, if the facilities were equal in quality, did not imply that one race was inferior to another. This was seen as a legal justification for segregation that persisted until the mid-20th century.

The belief at the time was that the law could allow for separation between races without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is important to note that this reasoning was deeply flawed and reflected the racist social order of the era. The "separate but equal" policy was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court in the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, which recognized that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. This was a major victory for the Civil Rights Movement and a key step towards the end of legal segregation in the United States.