Loving v. Virginia: Difference between revisions

From Dickinson College Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
← Older edit
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
='''Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967)'''=
=<small>'''Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967)'''</small>=


Appellants:
Appellants:
Line 9: Line 9:




The Court's opinion was given by '''Chief Justice Earl Warren'''
The Court's opinion was given by '''Chief Justice Earl Warren'''.


==Facts of the Case==
==Facts of the Case==


 
Virginia residents Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man were married in the District of Columbia in June of 1958.  The couple returned to their home in Caroline County, VA and were eventually indicted for violating the VA ban on interracial marriages.  The Lovings plead guilty, sentenced to one year in prison, which was suspended on the condition the Lovings would leave VA and not return together for 25 years.  Upon returning to the District of Columbia, the Lovings filed a suit at the state level on the ground that the law was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.


==Issues Involved==
==Issues Involved==


The issues involved in this case include, but are not limited to:
The issues involved in this case include, but are not limited to:
#i
#Does restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violate the Equal Protection Clause?
#Does restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications deprive the couple of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause?


==Decision==
==Decision==
Line 26: Line 27:
==Holding and Rationale of the Court==
==Holding and Rationale of the Court==


Specific rights, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, create zones of privacy, which allow for the execution of those specific rights.  The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments provide married couples with the privacy to be secure in their relational decisions.
Restricting the freedom to marry solely based on racial classifications is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and deprives the appellants of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


The rationale of the Court was:
The rationale of the Court was:
#The Framers of the Constitution did not intend the Bill of Rights to cover all rights bestowed upon citizens of the United States.  
#The two statutes, which the appellants were convicted, were part of a statutory scheme to prohibit and punish interracial marriages.
#The Bill of Rights creates realms of privacy, which allow citizens to freely engage in those rights.  
#Virginia's miscegenation statutes are based solely on racial distinctions.
#The Fourth and Fifth Amendments create a realm of privacy for married couples to feel secure in their decisions.  
#The Equal Protection Clause requires strict scrutiny of racial classifications.
#The Court has in the past upheld married couples’ rights to privacy in deciding personal matters such as, the decision of how to educate their children and other private matters of the home.
#A criminal offense based on an individuals skin is not strictly applied.  Therefore, the Virginia law violates the Equal Protection Clause.
#The Connecticut statutes in question unnecessarily invade the realm of privacy of married couples afforded them by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
#Under the Virginia law, the freedom of choice to marry is restricted based on racial distinctions.
#The unnecessary invasion of privacy runs counter to the intentions of the Constitution and is therefore, unconstitutional.
#The Due Process Clause require the freedom of choice to marry be open and be not restricted.
#The Virginia law, therefore, violates the Due Process Clause.


=Additional Opinions=
=Additional Opinions=
The decision of the Court was unanimous, with one concurrence.


==Concurring Opinions==
==Concurring Opinions==
   
   
'''Justice Goldberg''' concurred with Court’s opinion, but believed the Fourteenth Amendment provided for the liberty of personal rights, which are not specified in the Bill of Rights. 
'''Justice Stewart''' concurred with the Court's opinion citing "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."
 
'''Justice Harlan''' also concurred with the Court’s opinion, but stated the “statute violated basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” 
 
In addition, '''Justice White''' concurred stating that the statute deprived married couples of rights without due process of law, with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment. 
 
==Dissenting Opinions==
 
'''Justices Black and Stewart''' dissented on the claims that the statute violated no constitutional principle, with Justice Black stressing there was “no constitutional right of privacy”.
 


=Additional Links=
=Additional Links=

Latest revision as of 05:59, 29 April 2009

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967)

Appellants:

  • Mildred Jeter Loving
  • Richard Loving

Defendant:

  • State of Virginia


The Court's opinion was given by Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Facts of the Case

Virginia residents Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man were married in the District of Columbia in June of 1958. The couple returned to their home in Caroline County, VA and were eventually indicted for violating the VA ban on interracial marriages. The Lovings plead guilty, sentenced to one year in prison, which was suspended on the condition the Lovings would leave VA and not return together for 25 years. Upon returning to the District of Columbia, the Lovings filed a suit at the state level on the ground that the law was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issues Involved

The issues involved in this case include, but are not limited to:

  1. Does restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violate the Equal Protection Clause?
  2. Does restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications deprive the couple of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause?

Decision

The Supreme Court overturned the State of Virginia Supreme Court of Appeal's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation law.

Holding and Rationale of the Court

Restricting the freedom to marry solely based on racial classifications is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and deprives the appellants of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The rationale of the Court was:

  1. The two statutes, which the appellants were convicted, were part of a statutory scheme to prohibit and punish interracial marriages.
  2. Virginia's miscegenation statutes are based solely on racial distinctions.
  3. The Equal Protection Clause requires strict scrutiny of racial classifications.
  4. A criminal offense based on an individuals skin is not strictly applied. Therefore, the Virginia law violates the Equal Protection Clause.
  5. Under the Virginia law, the freedom of choice to marry is restricted based on racial distinctions.
  6. The Due Process Clause require the freedom of choice to marry be open and be not restricted.
  7. The Virginia law, therefore, violates the Due Process Clause.

Additional Opinions

The decision of the Court was unanimous, with one concurrence.

Concurring Opinions

Justice Stewart concurred with the Court's opinion citing "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."

Additional Links

The American Eugenics Movement

Eugenics and the Supreme Court

Case Summary from OYEZ

Retrieved from "https://wiki.dickinson.edu/index.php?title=Loving_v._Virginia&oldid=46120"