Preview

Loving v. Virginia Summary

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
290 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Loving v. Virginia Summary
CRIJ 1310-01: Fundamentals of Criminal Law
February 14, 2014
Loving V. Virginia The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia on June 12, 1967 struck down the remaining interracial marriage bans in 16 states in the United States, ending race discrimination in marriage. The state of Virginia enacted laws making it a felony for a white person to intermarry with a black person or the reverse. The constitutionality of the statutes was called into question. Restricting the freedom to marry solely on the basis of race violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia held that the statutes served the legitimate state purpose of preserving the racial integrity of its citizens. The State then argued that because its miscegenation statutes punished both white and black participants in an interracial marriage equally, they cannot be said to discriminate based on race, therefore requiring that the statutes needed further review.
The statutes were clearly drawn upon race-based distinctions because the legality of certain behavior turned on the races of the people engaging in it. Equal Protection requires that classifications based on race be subject to intense scrutiny for this reason. The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits classifications drawn by any statute that constitutes subjective and hateful discrimination. The fact that Virginia would focus on bans of interracial marriages involving whites is proof that the miscegenation statutes exist for no other purpose other than the independent goals of those based on racial discrimination. This case was essential in providing a firm foundation, that it is not possible, for a state law to be valid, which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In order for a facially-neutral law to be struck down as unconstitutional under the equal protection clause, one must prove that there is a discriminatory impact as well as discriminatory purpose or discriminatory administration (Chemerinsky 724). Tick Wo v. Hopkins is an example of a case that lacked discriminatory intent in the context of the law, however was carried out in a discriminatory manner. In Tick the law was racially neutral, but its administration to Chinese-Americans was discriminatory in nature as the facts established that Chinese-Americans were often denied for permits than non-Chinese-Americans (Alexander…

    • 95 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In 1963, the Lovings filed a motion in State Trail court on the grounds on Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment were violated.…

    • 109 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Mildred Jeter, an African-American woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, went to Washington, D.C, to get married and avoid Virginia’s interracial marriage ban. When they returned to Virginia not long after, the Lovings were arrested under the charges of violating Virginia’s interracial marriage ban.…

    • 189 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Virginia on April 7th 2003 a divided United States Supreme Court opened the possibility of constitutionally restricting certain types of hate speech. The court was to hear a case that spoke to one specific Virginia state statute that prohibited cross burning with the intent to intimidate, and also rendered that any such burning shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group. This court would see this statute being used between two separate cases. The first case was against Barry Black; in August of 1998 Black led a Ku Klux Klan rally at which the conclusion resulted in the burning of a cross on private property with the permission of the owner. Black was charged under the state statute, “Burning a cross with the intent to intimidate.” [347] The jury was instructed in accordance with the Model Jury Instruction that the burning of the cross by itself is sufficient evidence from which you may infer the required intent. [364] In May 1998 Richard Elliot and Jonathan O’Mara attempted to burn a cross on the lawn of Elliot’s neighbor and were charged in accordance under the cross-burning statute. After all of the respondents were convicted, they appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia arguing that the cross-burning statute is unconstitutional. The Virginia Supreme court reversed all the convictions holding that the Virginia cross-burning statute is analytically indistinguishable from the ordinance found…

    • 884 Words
    • 4 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

    Stutzman Case Summary

    • 433 Words
    • 2 Pages

    “This case is about crushing dissent. In a free America, people with differing beliefs must have room to coexist,” ADF’s senior counsel Kristen Waggoner said in a statement. “It’s wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will. Freedom of speech and religion aren’t subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees.”…

    • 433 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    ISSUE: State statues definition of “marriage” -limiting it to man & woman. Unconstitutional as it bars equal protection…

    • 1076 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Lovings were represented by American Civil Liberties Union and had the conviction appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that their rights to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated. The Racial Integrity law was stroke down. The Supreme Court recognized that this law was meant to keep all others segregated from Caucasians.…

    • 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
  • Powerful Essays

    There was also the case of Pace v. Alabama which allowed Alabama to outlaw interracial sex and marriage. Justice’s decided Plessy’s case did not conflict with the thirteen amendment, although the fourteen amendment which was violated, was decided that seperation of races did not violate the 14th amendment since states had the right to regulate railroad companies that run only in the state, according to the supreme court also stated that Plessy was not being treated as a slave or unequal, and that seperation did not violate 14th or 15th amendments. Since this decision was made and with the influence of past cases that did not support the Plessy v. Ferguson case,a legal culture among citizens and law officials was created in which it was believed that it was okay to have separate facilities. The concept of internal legal culture judges from state and supreme court and lawyers!!!!. internal legal culture, the citizens believed that it was fine if there was…

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful 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

    Loving Vs Virginia Essay

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The judge of the Loving’s trial stated “Almighty God created the races white, black, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. and but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” The state of Virginia, the plaintiff, makes the argument that couples of different race should not be married for it’s not what God intended. On the other side, the defendant, the Loving’s, believe the state didn’t have the right to charge them and the state was…

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays