The Lovings v. The State of Virginia

913 Words Jul 14th, 2018 4 Pages
Richard and Mildred Loving were prosecuted on charges of violating the Virginia state’s ban on interracial marriages, the 1924 Racial Integrity Act. The Loving’s violated Virginia law when the couple got married in Washington D.C., June 1958. The couple returns to their home in Central Point, Virginia. In the early morning hours of July 11, 1958, the Loving’s were awakened by local county sheriff and deputies, acting on an anonymous tip, burst into their bedroom. “Who is this woman you’re sleeping with?” Mrs. Loving answered “I’m his wife.” Richard Loving pointed to the marriage certificate on the wall. The sheriff responded, “That’s no good here.” In the initial proceedings presiding Judge Leon M. Bazile, is credit with saying …show more content…
The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by racial discriminations. Under the United States Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state (Lexis 10). On June 12, 1967 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, which had affirmed the Loving’s convictions and held upheld the constitutionality of the statutes. The Court rejected the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications was enough to remove the classification from the U.S. Constitution Amendment Fourteen. The amendment proscription of all invidious racial discriminations and held there was no legitimate overriding purpose which justified the classification. The Court found that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violated the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause and deprived appellants of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court.
“This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme