Preview

Loving V. Virginia, Introduction, Facts, Legal Background

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1579 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Loving V. Virginia, Introduction, Facts, Legal Background
Loving v. Virginia
Interracial marriage: Respecting the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case note will examine the 1967 landmark Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia. The Loving v. Virginia case touched on constitutional principles including equality, federalism, and liberty. Just over 30 years ago, it was a crime for interracial couples in Virginia to marry, or to live as husband and wife. Prior to the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, many states had laws that banned the intermarriage of whites with black or other minorities. The United States has a long history of the existence of anti-miscegenation laws that forbid interracial marriage. The case presents the constitutional question 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. The right that is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, contains the right to be treated the same, legally, as others in the same situation. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws . The equal protection jurisprudence in the United States has evolved greatly. Well-known cases covering the Equal Protection Clause are Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, considering the de-segregation of public schools and Korematsu v. United States in 1944, when the Court first articulated a strict scrutiny standard for laws based on race-based distinctions. This strict scrutiny standard was applied again in the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967. In 1967, the Supreme Court’s had to decide if these anti-miscegenation statutes were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared, in a unanimous decision, Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Facts: An undercover police officer watched a controlled deal from inside his unmarked police car. When the deal was over, the undercover police officer radioed for uniformed police officers to move in on the suspect, who was heading towards a breezeway in an apartment complex.…

    • 461 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Facts: Groups of the same sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states bans on the same sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same sex marriages that occurred in jurisdiction that provide for such marriages. James Obergefell (plaintiffs) in each case argued that the states statutes violated Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights act. In all the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S Courts of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reverse and held that the states bans on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violated the couples fourteenth amendment rights to equal protection and due process.…

    • 604 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Loving v Virginia a married couple from Washington D.C. moved to Virginia where they were then subject to Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute. Anti-miscegenation laws prohibit the marrying of different races with another. In Virginia, this statute prohibited the marriage between whites and any other race. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, were married in Washington D.C. They then moved to the state of Virginia where they faced criminal charges. Both of them pled guilty and were sentenced to one year imprisonment but the sentence would be waved for 25 years if they moved out of state and didn’t return.…

    • 600 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Apush Chapter 17 Terms

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Also issues on Constitutionality- court declared this act as unconstitutional, holding that the fourteenth amendment gave congress the power to outlaw discrimination by states, but not by private individuals.…

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As the case of Garden State Equality vs. Dow unravels into the Supreme Court hearings, there will be an indefinite variety of opinions and disputes of minds. There is room for controversy and disputes will arise. There are miss-interpretations and quotes that government officials and citizens against civil union rights have expressed and demonstrated about same-sex couples and their right to marry. This is an example of an interpretation given to describe differences in marital relationships by one of the Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440 Mass. at 1207, it states, “The dissimilitude between the terms “civil marriage” and “civil union” is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of…

    • 575 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    I chose to discuss a Supreme Court Case which was found to be in direct violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case I am discussing is Loving v. Virginia. Initially, the Anti-miscegenation laws were put into place during the slavery/colonial period. No white man would tarnish his reputation or family name by actually marrying a slave but would indulge in the forbidden fruit by raping and/or having adulterous relationships with the slave. If through their sexual activity a child was born and his or her paternity rights were denied.…

    • 564 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hence, in 1963, the case was repealed by Lovings stating that the judgment was in violation of the fourteenth amendment, but the state trail and the courts denied it signifying that the statues were constitutional. The state failing in their efforts the case was brought to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren proceeding over the case re-opened in 1967 gave the final verdict that previous sentencing by the state was in violation of principal of equality. Then ordered that under the constitution the freedom to marry or not another person of a different race was an individual choice and was not for the states to decide. Accordingly, the limitation on admitting racial minorities placed by the Brown University a state funded university was also in violation of equal protection clause, which paved the way for Affirmative action in 1961 that requires equal access to education for underrepresented factions, such as women and…

    • 454 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    virginia v morre

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The day was February 20,2003, in the city of Portsmouth where two Portsmouth police officers had pulled a vehicle over who was driven by David Lee Moore. While listening to police radio they had heard that the man they pulled over who went by the nickname “chubs” was driving on a suspended license. The officer’s soon determined that chubbs was indeed driving on a suspended license. The officers who made the stop arrested chubbs for the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license. This violation could have lead to chubbs serving a 1-year in jail and a $25,000 fine, according to Va Code Ann 18.2-11. The officers then searched the vehicle in which chubbs was driving. During the search of the vehicle the officers found 16 grams of crack cocaine and $516 in cash. The state law of Virginia states that the officers should have offered Moore a summons rather than arresting him. The statutes of the Fourth Amendment give the officers the right to search if they believe a crime was committed in their presence. The act of driving on a suspended license is not an offense you can be arrested for unlike other misdemeanors.…

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The United States v. Virginia court case was debated on Jan 17, 1996 at Virginia Military Institute. The advocates involved were Paul Bender, who argued the case for the United States and Theodore B. Olson, who argued the case on behalf of Virginia. The U.S was the petitioner, while Virginia was the accused. According to "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court Case and Opinions.” the case was about Virginia Military Institute violating the fourteenth Amendments of Equal Protection by maintaining a public founded Virginia Military Institute as an all-male institution. According to "United States v. Virginia 518 U.S. 515 (1996)." Justia Law, the intention of the VMI was to create “citizen soldiers”, men who are prepared for leadership in civilian life and in military service. The VMI was trying to train male leaders of the future excluding the females.…

    • 491 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia were Richard and Mildred Loving, who were represented by the ACLU in the Supreme Court. The Plaintiff argued the prohibition of interracial marriage was unconstitutional and anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment explains, “No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.” As declared by the Constitution and Maynard v. Hill case, marriage is a civil right for citizens of the United States and the decision of whether one decides to marry a colored person or not cannot be infringed by any state. Denying anyone their given right to marry without due process of the…

    • 274 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In every Supreme Court case there is a question, in this particular case the question has to do with segregation. The question is: “Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?” The 14th Amendment basically says that all states will have equal protection to everyone within their jurisdiction. It provides due process under the law and equally provides all constitutional rights to all citizens of this country, regardless of race, sex, religious beliefs and creed. (Kernell,…

    • 784 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Virginia V Black

    • 423 Words
    • 2 Pages

    B) The first amendment permits a State to ban “True threats” which encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or groups of individuals. The speaker need not actually intent to carry out the threat. Intimidation is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.…

    • 423 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court Case Study

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Karen L. Jerman had a mortgage with Countrywide Home Loans and was contacted by the law firm Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, on behalf of Country Wide, seeking a foreclosure on Jerman’s property.…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    miscegenation laws; one of them was Virginia. In the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Loving v.…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Additionally, the Lovings’ lawyers argued that the Racial Integrity Act violated both the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause as well as the Due Process Clause. Until this point, the case had generated debate involving the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. Cohen emphasized that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause was to eliminate racial discrimination deriving from state action (Oral Arguments). However, Virginia’s statues criminalized behavior based solely on people’s race, thus denying them equal…

    • 1789 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays