Yes it did, it said it was unconstitutional.The court didn't say segregation was previously illegal. It said the segregation from that point on was unconstitutional. I know exactly what ex post facto means. It means that if they made it illegal to rob you on Wednesday but I robbed you on Monday before the ruling when it was perfectly legal, that you're shit out luck and that money is mine.
It was always unconstitutional.
You are confusing criminal (robbery) where ex post facto would come in to play and something that isn’t criminal but illegal.
You can certainly sue for damages, but what are your damages today?
Also hold those accountable, Jim Crow were laws dems put into place to maintain power, folks like “racial jungle” joe xiden, how have you held him accountable?