LOVING
LOVING
v.
VIRGINIA
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Argued April 10, 1967. Decided June
12, 1967.
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on
the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and
Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.
206 Va. 924, 147 S. E. 2d 78, reversed.
Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop argued the cause and filed a brief
for appellants. Mr. Hirschkop argued pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
R. D. McIlwaine III, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, argued the
cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Robert Y. Button, Attorney
General, and Kenneth C. Patty, Assistant Attorney General.
William M. Marutani, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the
Japanese American Citizens League, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by William M. Lewers and
William B. Ball for the National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice et
al.; [388 U.S. 1, 2] by Robert L. Carter and Andrew D. Weinberger for the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and by Jack
Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and Michael Meltsner for the N. A. A. C. P.
Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General,
filed a brief for the State of North Carolina, as amicus curiae, urging
affirmance.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. This case
SNIPPETS:
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of
Mr. Hirschkop argued pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
R. D. McIlwaine III, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, argued the cause for appellee.
William M. Marutani, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the Japanese American
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an
On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and
The motion not having been decided by October 28, 1964, the Lovings instituted a class action
On January 22, 1965, the state trial judge denied the motion to vacate the sentences, and the
The Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation statutes
The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of a
-- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry
Code Ann.
For the purpose of this chapter, the term 'white person' shall apply only to such person as
9] and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial intermarriage.
Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by
Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the
Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute
The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should
There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial
|
