Loving v. Virginia

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Bernard S. Cohen (Argued the cause for the appellants)
R. D. McIlwaine, III (Argued the cause for the appellee)
William M. Marutani (By special leave of Court, argued the cause for the Japanese American Citizens League, as amicus curiae, urging reversal)
Philip J. Hirschkop (Argued the cause for the appellants pro hac vice, by special leave of Court)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
395
Appellee: 
Virginia
Appellant: 
Loving
Decided By: 
Warren Court (1965-1967)
Opinion: 
388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Categories: 
marriage, race, fourteenth amendment, criminal, equal protection, due process, race discrimination, discrimination

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Loving v. Virginia , 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395)
Facts of the Case: 

In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).

Question: 

Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Loving, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Sort by Seniority

Voted with the majority
Douglas
Voted with the majority
Fortas
Wrote the majority opinion
Warren
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Voted with the majority
Black
Voted with the majority
Clark
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote a special concurrence
Stewart
Voted with the majority
Harlan

Full Opinion by Justice Earl Warren