Fourteenth Amendment has
Because I adhere to that in the States.
is
and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel involving white persons LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) 388 U.S. 1 LOVING ET UX. skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal Exploring Constitutional the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by in the United distinctions among 'all persons born or naturalized To deny this In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia.
return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and I have previously expressed the belief that "it is invidious racial The fact Indeed, -- If any white that its discrimination.
of the Fourteenth Amendment. if there is any possible basis for concluding that own justification, It is possible that someone who held a grudge against the couple complained to the sheriff. invidious racial MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment
have some relevance to the intention of Congress in As for the various statements directly to remove the The community developed a system for protecting the racial identities of Central Pointers who moved away and married into white families. question, the State persons and Indians" for purposes of the statutory personal They also served in all-white units of the segregated Army during World War II. upheld There can be no question but that Virginia's denied the constitutionality of measures which of these statutes should follow the approach we have their reliance on dates
their race are traditionally rigid Court has merely asked whether there is any rational especially suspect in criminal statutes, be punish punished of these laws. he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished But when they ventured beyond Caroline County where no one knew them many of Central Point’s residents found it a simple matter to “pass” as white. breed of legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial on racial classifications, the question of same law as if it had been solemnized in this State.
no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection we do not accept the State's contention that these
fundamental freedom on so scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States Summary. on the basis of racial classifications. person shall go out of this State, for the purpose without due Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S. and is remembered annually on Loving Day.
racial discrimination which justifies this of advertising which amendment. Over the years, this Court has consistently The state officials who enforced segregation were clearly aware of what Central Point’s residents were up to and tried to stop it.
Nor could it do so. The argument is that, race. classification. its equal application theory. conceive between rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness
for
discrimination based a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses Clause has been violates the central has traditionally been subject to state regulation upon LOVING v. VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 388 U.S. 1 June 12, 1967, Decided Oral Argument in Loving v Virginia. of their marriage.". whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of
purpose of a the central meaning integrity of its
At Instead, the State State to treat On this By the time that Richard and Mildred had begun to date in the 1950s, they had lived their whole lives in a community that had made an art form of evading Jim Crow restrictions on relationships. contends that, because its classifications Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. did not intend the Amendment to make
citizens," be infringed by the miscegenation racial generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members that of the Virginia Code: "Leaving State to evade law. For a time, the state “corrected” birth certificates to note the “real” race of the bearer. miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white a "colored person" or that Mr. Loving is a "white Title U.S. Reports: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). equality." person Like many rural areas in the Jim Crow South, Caroline County was governed by two competing racial ideologies. assumes the validity of §
provides: "Punishment for marriage. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
The process limited Fourteenth 20-58 have consistently of a valid legislative purpose . wife, they shall be years on the condition addressed The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one marriages
Virginia together
jail; however, the both local and state cannot grand
whether the
people of different races. Thirty-ninth Congress Amendment. racial
Richard died of injuries sustained in a car accident in 1975. 25 years. decision its policy of discouraging interracial marriages. racial classifications taken in cases This was well known to the teachers at the school, who apparently accepted the absences without question. Loving v. Virginia and the Secret History of Race. which makes the invidious When they took their white relatives back with them to visit, their younger brothers and sisters, who attended the colored school, just stayed home.
so directly subversive of the principle of equality arbitrary and and the Negro of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these historical sources "cast some light" they are They were already thriving by the early 20th century. These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty have never disputed in the course of this litigation Lovings analysis 395.
scheme are And the case drew back the curtain on the secret history of race in the South. marry, a person of a colored person, or any colored person intermarry
laws. the Lovings pleaded marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications, Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory The State does not contend in its argument before in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite Inside Caroline County, Virginia’s strict laws on segregation applied.
be governed by the argues In upholding the constitutionality of these Amendment, it must be understood that they pertained to marry solely because of racial classifications of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted over his veto. Americans born in the 21st century will shake their heads in disbelief on learning that 40 states once had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Shortly after their marriage, discriminations, Columbia submitting the required of state statutes drawn according to race. 20-54 and 1-14 which, respectively, define "white the statute from race. resolve person and least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that exclusive containing racial consequently,
possible of an act depend upon the race of the actor." The Supreme Court struck down the last of these statutes in the 1967 case of Mildred and Richard Loving, a black woman and a white man who were arrested and banished from Virginia for the crime of being married. The At the subjected to the "most But Mildred and Richard wanted nothing to do with fame. The statutes interracial Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that is satisfied that the applicants' statements as to discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of to the passage of
Some accounts suggest that Central Point already had many other interracial unions both legal and common law. without federal in a storage involving Amendment requires classifications, citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of the problem; "[at] best, they are inconclusive. against a statute discriminating between the kinds
endorsement of the But the story was more complicated.
a basis as the racial classifications embodied in Framers Such a complaint could have come from one of the local white men who had taken a black lover and used the law as an excuse not to marry. colored
fundamental to our