Loving v. Virginia

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.

Issues Involved

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

1. i

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

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.

The rationale of the Court was:

1. The Framers of the Constitution did not intend the Bill of Rights to cover all rights bestowed upon citizens of the United States.
2. The Bill of Rights creates realms of privacy, which allow citizens to freely engage in those rights.
3. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments create a realm of privacy for married couples to feel secure in their decisions.
4. 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.
5. The Connecticut statutes in question unnecessarily invade the realm of privacy of married couples afforded them by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
6. The unnecessary invasion of privacy runs counter to the intentions of the Constitution and is therefore, unconstitutional.

Additional 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 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

The American Eugenics Movement

Eugenics and the Supreme Court

Case Summary from OYEZ