Document: 388 U.S. 1 87 S.Ct. 1817 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 Richard Perry LOVING et ux., Appellants,v.COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. No. 395. Argued April 10, 1967. Decided June 12, Philip J. Hirschkop, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, Bernard S. Cohen, Alexandria, Va., for appellants. R. D. McIlwaine, III, Richmond, appellee. William M. Marutani, Philadelphia, Pa., Japanese American Citizens League, as amicus curiae, Court. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion This case presents a constitutional question never addressed this Court: whether statutory scheme adopted State Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on basis racial classifications violates Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses Fourteenth Amendment.1 For reasons which seem us reflect central meaning those commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with Amendment. 2 In 1958, two residents Virginia, Mildred Jeter, Negro woman, Loving, white man, were married in District Columbia pursuant its laws. Shortly after their marriage, Lovings returned established marital abode Caroline County. At October Term, Circuit Court County, grand jury issued an indictment charging violating Virginia's ban interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, pleaded guilty charge sentenced one year jail; however, trial judge suspended sentence period 25 years condition not return together years. He stated that: 3 'Almighty God created races white, black, yellow, malay red, he placed them separate continents. And but interference his arrangement there would be no cause such The fact separated shows did intend mix.' 4 After convictions, took up residence Columbia. November 1963, they filed motion state court vacate judgment set aside ground had violated repugnant having been decided 28, 1964, instituted class action United States Eastern requesting three-judge convened declare antimiscegenation unconstitutional enjoin officials from enforcing convictions. 22, 1965, denied sentences, perfected appeal Supreme Appeals Virginia. February 11, continued allow present claims highest court. 5 upheld constitutionality and, modifying sentence, affirmed convictions.2 appealed decision, noted probable jurisdiction December 1966, 385 986, 595, 17 448. 6 under appellants convicted are part comprehensive aimed at prohibiting punishing § 20—58 Code: 7 'Leaving evade law.—If any person colored shall go out State, purpose being married, intention returning, it, afterwards reside cohabiting man wife, punished provided 20—59, marriage governed same law if it solemnized State. cohabitation here wife evidence marriage.' 8 Section defines penalty miscegenation, provides: 9 'Punishment marriage.—If intermarry person, or felony confinement penitentiary less than nor more five years.' 10 Other provisions 20—57, automatically voids all 'a person' without judicial proceeding,3 §§ 20—54 1—14 which, respectively, define 'white persons' 'colored Indians' purposes prohibitions.4 have disputed course litigation Mrs. Loving is within meanings given terms statutes. 11 now 16 prohibit punish classifications.5 Penalties miscegenation arose incident slavery common since colonial period.6 dates adoption Racial Integrity Act 1924, passed during extreme nativism followed end First World War. features Act, current law, absolute prohibition marrying other another person,'7 against issuing licenses until official satisfied applicants' statements race correct,8 certificates 'racial composition' kept both local registrars,9 carrying forward earlier prohibitions intermarriage.10 I. 12 upholding decision below, referred 1955 Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, S.E.2d 749, stating supporting validity concluded State's legitimate 'to preserve integrity citizens,' 'the corruption blood,' mongrel breed obliteration pride,' obviously endorsement doctrine White Supremacy. Id., 90, S.E.2d, 756. also reasoned has traditionally subject regulation federal intervention, consequently, should left exclusive control Tenth 13 While doubt correct asserting social relation police power, Maynard Hill, 125 190, 723, 31 L.Ed. 654 (1888), does contend argument before powers regulate unlimited notwithstanding commands Nor could do so light Meyer Nebraska, 262 390, 43 625, 67 1042 (1923), Skinner Oklahoma, 316 535, 62 1110, 86 1655 (1942). Instead, argues Clause, illuminated Framers, only penal laws containing element definition offense must apply equally whites Negroes sense members each degree. Thus, contends that, because participants statutes, despite reliance constitute invidious discrimination based upon race. second advanced assumes equal application theory. Clause outlaw classifications, thus become was rational treat differently question, argues, scientific substantially defer wisdom legislature adopting policy discouraging 14 Because reject notion mere 'equal application' statute enough remove Amendment's proscription discriminations, accept contention possible concluding serve purpose. mean our analysis follow approach taken cases involving where arrayed discriminating kinds advertising may displayed trucks New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. People York, 336 106, .Ct. 463, 93 533 (1949), exemption Ohio's ad valorem tax merchandise owned non-resident storage warehouse, Allied Stores Ohio, Bowers, 358 522, 79 437, 480 (1959). cases, distinctions drawn according race, merely asked foundation deferred legislatures. bar, deal immunize very heavy burden justification Amendment required 15 Thirty-ninth Congress about time passage indicate Framers make Many alluded concern debates over Freedmen's Bureau Bill, President Johnson vetoed, Civil Rights 1866, Stat. 27, enacted veto. some relevance submitting Amendment, understood pertained specific broader, organic amendment. As various directly concerning said connection related problem, although historical sources 'cast light' sufficient resolve problem; '(a)t best, inconclusive. most avid proponents post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended legal among 'all born naturalized States.' Their opponents, just certainly, antagonistic letter spirit wished limited effect.' Brown Board Education Topeka, 347 483, 489, 74 686, 689, 98 873 (1954). See Strauder West 100 303, 310, 664 (1880). We rejected proposition legislatures ratified supported theory requirement protection defining offenses long similarly punished. McLaughlin Florida, 379 184, 85 283, 222 (1964). finds support Pace Alabama, 106 583, 637, 27 207 (1883). case, conviction Alabama forbidding adultery fornication imposed greater proscribing similar conduct discriminate punishment participant same. However, recently 1964 rejecting reasoning 'Pace represents view withstood subsequent decisions Court.' supra, 188, 286. demonstrated, requires consideration arbitrary discrimination. clear eliminate States. Slaughter-House Cases, Wall. 36, 71, 21 394 (1873); 307—308 (1880); Ex parte 339, 344—345, 26 676 Shelley Kraemer, 334 1, 68 836, 92 1161 (1948); Burton Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 715, 81 856, 45 (1961). There can rest proscribe generally accepted engaged different races. Over years, repudiated '(d)istinctions citizens ancestry' 'odious free people whose institutions founded equality.' Hirabayashi States, 320 81, 100, 63 1375, 1385, 1774 (1943). least, demands especially suspect criminal subjected 'most rigid scrutiny,' Korematsu 323 214, 216, 65 193, 194, 89 194 (1944), ever upheld, shown necessary accomplishment permissible objective, independent object eliminate. Indeed, already 'cannot conceive valid legislative * makes color person's skin test offense.' 198, 292, (Stewart, J., joined Douglas, concurring). patently overriding justifies classification. prohibits demonstrates own justification, measures designed maintain Supremacy.11 restrict rights account restricting freedom marry Clause. II. 19 These deprive liberty due process violation recognized vital personal essential orderly pursuit happiness men. 20 Marriage 'basic civil man,' fundamental existence survival. 541, 1113, (1888). To deny unsupportable embodied subversive principle equality heart surely law. choice restricted discriminations. Under Constitution, marry, resides individual infringed convictions reversed. It ordered. 22 Reversed. 23 STEWART, concurring. 24 I previously expressed belief 'it simply Constitution criminality act depend actor.' (concurring opinion). adhere belief, concur 'All thereof, wherein reside. No enforce abridge privileges immunities States; life, liberty, property, law; laws.' 206 924, 147 78 (1966). 20—57 Code 'Marriages void decree.—All absolutely decree divorce process.' Va.Code Ann. (1960 Repl.Vol.). Sectin 'Intermarriage prohibited; term persons.' hereafter unlawful save admixture blood Indian. chapter, trace whatever Caucasian; who one-sixteenth Indian non-Caucasic deemed persons. All heretofore effect regarding intermarriage prohibited chaper.' exception 'of Indian' apparently accounted for, words tract Registrar Vital Statistics, desire recognize integral honored descendants John Rolfe Pocahontas *.' Plecker, Family Race Improvement, Va.Health Bull., Extra 25—26 (New Series 5, 1925), cited Wadlington, Case; Anti-Miscegenation Statute Historical Perspective, 52 Va.L.Rev. 1189, 1202, n. Colored Indians defined.—Every whom ascertainable every fourth Indian; except tribes existing Commonwealth sixteenth tribal Indians.' initiation litigation, Maryland repealed Md.Laws 1967, c. leaving outlawing marriage: Ala.Const., Art. 4, 102, Ala.Code, Tit. 14, 360 (1958); Arkansas, Ark.Stat.Ann. 55—104 (1947); Delaware, Del.Code Ann., 13, 101 (1953); Fla.Const., 16, 24, F.S.A., Fla.Stat. 741.11 (1965) F.S.A.; Georgia, Ga.Code 53—106 (1961); Kentucky, Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. 402.020 (Supp.1966); Louisiana, La.Rev.Stat. 14:79 (1950); Mississippi, Miss.Const., 263, Miss.Code 459 (1956); Missouri, Mo.Rev.Stat. 451.020 (Supp.1966), V.A.M.S.; North Carolina, N.C.Const., XIV, 8, N.C.Gen.Stat. 14—181 Okla.Stat., 43, (Supp.1965); South S.C.Const., 3, 33, S.C.Code 20—7 (1962); Tennessee, Tenn.Const., Tenn.Code 36 402 (1955); Vernon's Ann.Texas, Tex.Pen.Code, 492 (1952); W.Va.Code 4697 past marriages: Arizona, California, Coor ado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming. first violate California. Perez Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d (1948). discussion see 4. 20—53 20—50 Appellants point 1924 Act's title, 'An Preserve Integrity,' extends nonwhite (subject Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, interference. distinction renders unreasonable even assuming integrity.' need reach find even-handed protect 'integrity'

Category: 1