Figgins is the dean of a college. He appointed Sue to be acting dean while he was out of the country and posted an announcement on the college website which said that Sue was authorized to act in his place. Figgins also told Sue privately that she could do most everything in his job description while he was away, but she did not have the right to make admissions decisions. While Figgins was gone, Sue overruled the admissions committee to admit the child of a wealthy alumnus. Does the child have the right to attend this college

Yes

Explanation:

Yes, in this scenario the child has the right to attend this college. This is because despite Fliggins telling Sue privately that she could not make admission decisions, he still publicly appointed her acting dean and publicly gave her all authority as a dean. Therefore, due to this Sue had apparent authority over all matters that are normally handled by the dean of the college. This includes admissions to the college.

Plessy v. Ferguson, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court, on May 18, 1896, by a seven-to-one majority (one justice did not participate), advanced the controversial “separate but equal” doctrine for assessing the constitutionality of racial segregation laws. Plessy v. Ferguson was the first major inquiry into the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s (1868) equal-protection clause, which prohibits the states from denying “equal protection of the laws” to any person within their jurisdictions