Loving v. Virginia: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==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== | ||
Revision as of 05:42, 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:
- 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
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:
- T
Additional Opinions
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
