Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
- Plaintiff:
1. Virginia anti-miscegenation statutes are unconstitutional
2. Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
3. Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
- ACLU filed a motion in the state trial court to overturn the judgement and set aside the sentence in the violated statutes.
- October 28, 1964, the Lovings brought a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- January 22, 1965, the three-judge district court decided to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
- Defendant:
1. Violation of section 20-58 of the Virginia Code (if white and colored persons left the state to get married and came back, they shall be punished)
2. Violation of section 20-59 (white and colored marriage a felony)
3. Virginia did not violate Equal Protection Clause (provided identical penalties to white/black violators.
Verdict
- Court upheld the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes,
- affirmed the criminal convictions,
- and the case was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause
Virginia's Intermarriage Laws
- 1691: First interracial marriage law (white partner to leave Virginia within three months)
- 1849: all interracial marriages are illegal
- 1878: both partners will be punished (2-5 yrs)
- 1924: Racial Integrity Act (reaffirmed the state's longstanding prohibition on marriage and radically limited a person's ability to legally claim themselves as white)
Aftermath
- Lived in Caroline County, Virginia
- Had three children (Donald, Peggy, Sidney)
- 1975: Richard died in a car accident and Mildred lost sight in her right eye.
- May 2, 2008: Mildred died of pneumonia
- During the case, there must have been family and friend support because they were the main reasons why the Lovings fought in the court.
Relevance Today
- The Lovings wanted to live together in their home state, Virginia.
- They simply wanted to live their lives and raise their children in peace.
- Richard and Mildred Loving, a couple from Virginia, married in June, 1958, in Washington D.C.
- Violated Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924
- Police raided home during the night and arrested them.
- January 6, 1959, Lovings plead guilty, sentenced to one year in prison.
- June 12, Loving Day: an annual unofficial celebration of interracial marriages.
- Loving v. Virginia is discussed in the context of the public debate about same-sex marriage in the United States.
- The case provides a road map for same-sex marriage advocates.
Why They Plead Guilty
Plea Bargain
- when the defendant pleas guilty to a less serious charge in return for the dismissal of other charges.
Sources
Dissenting Opinions
- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1#writing-USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO
- The dissent: the State of Virginia can prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications
- Opinion: this violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395#sort=seniority
- http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-10-loving_N.htm
- Despite the Supreme Court's decision, anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states, although the decision had made them unenforceable.
- The number of interracial marriages continued to increase across the United States and in the South
- http://life.time.com/history/richard-and-mildred-loving-landmark-civil-rights-case-photos/#1
- Decided on June 12, 1967
- Unanimous decision
- All nine justices voted for the majority (Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas)
- Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority decision.
- Marriage is a basic civil right of man. Denying this based on race will deny all the citizens of liberty without due process of law. Freedom of marriage cannot be violated by the state.
- http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Virginia_1967
Concurrent Opinions
- Associate Justice Potter Stewart
- "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."
Nastya Popova