The Supreme Court of the mid-1950s through to the 1970s is considered by many to be the most liberal Supreme Court in U.S. History. Guided by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court took on dozens of cases that involved racism, segregation, equal protections, and minority rights. The tenure of the Warren Court, utilizing judicial activism, oversaw the expansion of civil rights, the growth of federal powers, and the increased power of the executive to enforce minority rights. One of the many landmark cases heard by the Warren Court is Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Nearly a decade after the Court desegregated the schools; this case reviewed the laws in the U.S. that forbade interracial marriage.
Explore our app and discover over 50 million learning materials for free.
Lerne mit deinen Freunden und bleibe auf dem richtigen Kurs mit deinen persönlichen Lernstatistiken
Jetzt kostenlos anmeldenNie wieder prokastinieren mit unseren Lernerinnerungen.
Jetzt kostenlos anmeldenThe Supreme Court of the mid-1950s through to the 1970s is considered by many to be the most liberal Supreme Court in U.S. History. Guided by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court took on dozens of cases that involved racism, segregation, equal protections, and minority rights. The tenure of the Warren Court, utilizing judicial activism, oversaw the expansion of civil rights, the growth of federal powers, and the increased power of the executive to enforce minority rights. One of the many landmark cases heard by the Warren Court is Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Nearly a decade after the Court desegregated the schools; this case reviewed the laws in the U.S. that forbade interracial marriage.
The Loving v. Virginia case became a landmark decision as the Court’s ruling affected dozens of states with anti-miscegenation laws.
Anti-miscegenation: These laws are designed to reinforce racial segregation at the level of individual marriages and intimate relationships. Anti-miscegenation laws criminalize interracial marriage and sometimes even just the act of sexual intercourse between two consenting adults of different races. First enacted in the United States in the 1600s, these laws were integrated into the Jim Crow laws of the South following Reconstruction and continued to permeate state laws through to the 1960s.
The plaintiffs in the case are Mildred Loving and Richard Loving. Mildred was a woman of mixed-race descent, identifying as Rappahannock Native American, Cherokee, Portuguese, and African American. Mildred's lawyers and herself identified her as Black through most of the legal proceedings leading up to the Supreme Court decision. However, the arrest records show the police identified her as an “Indian.”
Richard Loving was a white man who, along with Mildred, was born and raised in Caroline County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C. Though the county itself enacted strong segregation laws, the town they grew up in - Central Point - was known as an openly mixed-race community. Richard and Mildred met in high school, where their relationship began.
In 1958, Mildred became pregnant. The couple decided to travel to Washington, D.C., to be married to avoid Virginia’s anti-interracial marriage laws that made marriage between white and non-whites a criminal offense. A few weeks after they returned from Washington, on July 11, 1958, local police raided the couple’s home to catch them in the act of intercourse, which would have also been a criminal offense. Upon raiding their home, Mildred identified their marriage certificate but was informed that it was not valid in Virginia.
The legal road to placing their case in the Supreme Court took nearly a decade.
The state charged Loving’s with violating the state code that classified miscegenation as a crime punishable by prison time.
In their preliminary trial in January 1959, the Loving’s pleaded guilty to living together as man and wife. Each was sentenced to one year in prison, but that sentence was suspended as long as the Loving’s left Virginia and did not return for twenty-five years. Following their conviction, the Loving’s moved to Washington, D.C., where their marriage was legal.
Though they avoided going to prison, Mildred Loving became frustrated with their family’s inability to travel together back to Virginia to see family. Along with financial difficulties making life in Washington difficult, Mildred petitioned their conviction to U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who passed their case on to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU requested a review of their conviction from the Virginia Appellate courts but did not have any response for over a year. In response to the lack of action, the ACLU brought suit in the U.S. District Court, arguing their conviction violated the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. The District Court upheld their conviction citing a biblical interpretation of race from the 1700s.
The subsequent appeal went to the Virginia Supreme Court, which again upheld the lower Court's decision, stating that their conviction did not violate the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were equally punished for miscegenation. The ACLU then petitioned the case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which accepted the review in December 1966.
The Supreme Court heard the arguments from the ACLU and Virginia and issued their decision on June 12, 1967. In a 9-0 unanimous decision, the Court ruled in favor of Loving’s, overturning their conviction and nullifying the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The opinion, authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren and joined by all the justices, stated that the precedent used in the lower courts, that both whites and non-whites share an equal burden, thus miscegenation, does not violate the equal protection clause was invalid. It was invalid due to the application of strict scrutiny on the law, which was created with racial bias as its purpose.
“There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny." 1
Strict Scrutiny: A legal test used by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not a law denies equal protection. The court determines if the law does not serve a compelling state interest or is too broad in interpretation to achieve that legal goal.
The Loving decision in 1967 made anti-miscegenation laws unenforceable throughout the nation. However, several states retained these laws through to the 1970s. Alabama was the last state to remove anti-miscegenation language from its state constitution in the year 2000 after nearly two-thirds of voters in the state endorsed changing their constitution.
Following the Loving decision, the number of interracial marriages in the United States continued to climb, especially in the South.
One of the more significant lasting impacts of the Loving v. Virginia decision is its precedent for other laws that defined marriage across the United States. Most importantly, Loving is the cornerstone precedent cited in the Obergefell v. Hodges case from 2015 that established that states were required to allow same-sex marriages under similar reasoning from the Loving case from nearly fifty years prior.
In Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited Loving more than a dozen times in his opinion in expressing the unconstitutionality of laws against same-sex marriages in the United States.
A Supreme Court Case from 1967 nullified anti-miscegenation laws across the country.
June 12, 1967
The Loving's won the Supreme Court Ruling in a unanimous decision, 9-0 by the supreme court
It outlawed any legislation forbidding interracial marriage in the United States. This ruling created a strong precedent for future Supreme Court cases.
Most notably, Loving v Virginia was used as the legal precedent for the case Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 which legalized same-sex marriage in the United States.
Who was the Supreme Court Chief Justice during the Loving v Virginia case?
Chief Justice Earl Warren
What Virginia law did the Loving's violate?
The Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924/ Anti-miscegenation laws
When originally arrested, Mildred Loving was described as which race by the arresting officers?
Native American / "Indian"
Throughout the trials, Mildred Loving identified as what race?
Black
Where did the Loving's travel in 1958 to be married to avoid Virginia's ban on interracial marriage?
Washington, D.C.
True or False: The Loving's pleaded innocent to the charges of violating the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924?
False, they pleaded guilty.
Already have an account? Log in
Open in AppThe first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place
Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.
Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!
Sign up with Email Sign up with AppleBy signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.
Already have an account? Log in
Already have an account? Log in
The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place
Already have an account? Log in