|
Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Author: Sam Biers
Facts: An African American
woman and a Caucasian man were married in Wash. D.C. and shortly after moved to
VA. Following their conviction in VA they moved back to D.C.
Issue(s): Whether a state
statute preventing marriages between persons solely on the basis of their race
violates the Equal Protection Cl and D.P Cl of the 14th ?
Holding: Yes. There is no
legitimate purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination justifying the
discrimination. Measures intent on preserving white supremacy, which restrict
the rights of citizens on account of race are invalid. Restricting the right to
marry on the basis of race violates the EP Cl of the 14th.
Procedure: Grand Jury
Indictment of both for violating ban on interracial marriage. Lovings pled
guilty and were sentenced to one year, suspended for 25 years on condition they
move out of VA.
Lovings filed a motion w/
state ct to vacate judgment and set aside sentence (14th), and during
the interim filed a class action in fed.distr. Ct requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief. State trial ct denied motion; Lovings appealed to VA S. Ct
of App. (3 judge panel of district court certified case to highest state court),
upheld law and modified the sentence, but affirmed the convictions. U.S.S.Ct.
Reversed.
Rule(s): 14th
Amend.
Rationale: Va is one of
16 states that ban or penalize interracial marriages. The reasons given in
support by Va’s S. Ct are to preserve racial integrity and prevent corruption of
blood and obliteration of racial pride. Although marriage has been a
traditional subject of exclusive state regulation, a state’s power to regulate
are not without limit under the 14th.
Mere “Equal Application” of
a statute containing racial classifications is insufficient grounds to remove
the classification from the purview of the 14th ban on invidious
racial discrimination. Equal application does not mean the analysis should
involve the same rationality review as other cases which contain no racial
element.
The requirement of equal
protection under the 14th is satisfied by penal laws defining
offenses based on race where all races are punished similarly has been
rejected.
The statute contains a
racial classification, and the EP Cl demands that this type of statute must be
subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. If ever upheld, the state must show that
the law was necessary to accomplish a legitimate state purpose, independent of
the racial classification.
Pl’s A (State): The
originally the EP Cl is meant only that the penal laws of a state containing a
racial element must apply equally to each race–same degree, and here that has
occurred. If the EP Cl does not outlaw miscegenation laws b/c of their reliance
on racial classifications, then the standard is one of rational basis–does Va
treat interracial marriages differently from other marriage. This is left to the
state’ legislature, not the court
|
