Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1

Supreme Court of the United States

1967

Chapter

5

Title

Equality and the Constitution

Page

518

Topic

Heightened Scrutiny and the Problem of Race

Quick Notes

o         The Lovings challenged their conviction under a Virginia statute making it a felony for any white person to intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person to intermarry with a white person.

o         The Lovings got married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia.

o         They were convicted in Virginia for violating the state's ban on miscegenation.

o         They were sentenced to one year in jail.

Rule

o         Laws that classify on the basis of race are reviewed under equal protection with strict scrutiny and will not be upheld unless they are necessary to accomplish some permissible state objective.

Application

o         The Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny.

Court - Holding

o         Here, the racial classifications serve no legitimate function other than invidious racial discrimination.

o         There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of equal protection.

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         Whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?  Yes, it does violate Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Procedure

Trial

o         The Lovings were indicted on charges of violating the state's ban on interracial marriages

Virginia

o         Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia which held that Va. Code Ann. 20-58 and 20-59, which were adopted by to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications, did not violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Supreme

o         Reversed

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl Loving

Df Virginia

Description

o         The Lovings challenged their conviction under a Virginia statute making it a felony for any white person to intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person to intermarry with a white person.

o         The Lovings got married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia.

o         They were convicted in Virginia for violating the state's ban on miscegenation.

o         They were sentenced to one year in jail.

Supreme Court Appeals of Virginia

o         Upheld the statutes constitutionality.

o         Relied on its own earlier decision holding that the statutes served the legitimate state purposes of preserving the racial integrity of its citizens and preventing corruption of blood,  the creation of a mongrel breed of citizens, and the obliteration of racial pride.

Justice Warren

Statute cannot stand constituently with the Fourteenth Amendment

o         The anti-miscegenation statutes violate equal protection.

Virginia argues Punish both White and African American participation the same

o         The equal protection means only that an offense having an interracial element must punish the white and African American offender to the same degree.

o         Thus, Virginia argues, since its miscegenation statutes punish both the white and the African American participant of an interracial marriage the same, the statutes do not constitute an invidious discrimination based on race, despite their reliance on racial classifications.

Court Rejects this stupid ass logic

o         We reject Virginia's contention that statutes containing racial classifications should be upheld if there is any possible basis that they serve a rational purpose.

o         Equal application does not immunize a statute from the very heavy burden of justification that the 14th Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.

o         We also reject Virginia's argument that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to make anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional as long as both white and African American participants are equally punished.

14th Amendment Purpose - Eliminate all invidious racial discrimination

o         The clear and central purpose of the 14th Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination.

o         Unquestionably, Virginia's miscegenation statutes are based upon racial distinctions.

Exception - Unless necessary for some permissible state Objective

o         Racial classifications are subjected to the most rigid scrutiny and cannot be upheld unless they are necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state Objective other than racial discrimination

Court - Holding

o         Here, the racial classifications serve no legitimate function other than invidious racial discrimination.

o         There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of equal protection.

Reversed.

CONCURRENCE Justice Stewart

o         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.

Rules

Rule

o         Laws that classify on the basis of race are reviewed under equal protection with strict scrutiny and will not be upheld unless they are necessary to accomplish some permissible state objective.

Application

o         The Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny.

Class Notes