lack Letter
PALSU.S. Supreme Court (Chief Justice Warren, unanimous), 1967draftborradorunverifiedsin verificar

Loving v. Virginia

388 U.S. 1 (1967)

A married couple sentenced to leave Virginia for 25 years because of their races

In one lineEn una línea
Racial classifications in marriage laws fail strict scrutiny and also violate the fundamental right to marry.Las clasificaciones raciales en las leyes de matrimonio no superan el escrutinio estricto y violan el derecho fundamental a casarse.
RuleRegla
A state law that restricts marriage based on race violates both the Equal Protection Clause (racial classifications require the most rigid scrutiny and here served only white supremacy) and the Due Process Clause (marriage is a basic civil right).
Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
The anchor case for Friday's discussion of equal protection and fundamental rights, and the template later used for same-sex marriage (Obergefell).
Procedural posturePostura procesal
The Lovings pleaded guilty to violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriage; their motion to vacate was denied; the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the statute; the U.S. Supreme Court reversed.

Facts

Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, married in Washington, D.C. in 1958 and returned to live in Virginia. Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act made their marriage a felony. They were indicted, pleaded guilty and were sentenced to a year in jail, suspended on condition that they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years.

Procedural posture

Years later the Lovings moved to vacate the judgment as unconstitutional. The state trial court denied the motion; the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the statutes. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and reversed.

Issue

Whether a state statute that prevents marriages between persons solely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding

Yes, on both grounds. The convictions were reversed.

Reasoning

Equal protection: the statutes rest solely on race; such classifications are “odious to a free people” and must survive the most rigid scrutiny; there is no legitimate purpose independent of invidious discrimination, and the law’s history shows it was designed to preserve white supremacy. The state’s “equal application” argument fails because the Fourteenth Amendment’s purpose was to eliminate official sources of racial discrimination, not to tolerate symmetrical ones. Due process: the freedom to marry is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness; denying it on racial grounds deprives citizens of liberty without due process.

Rule (own words)

Race-based restrictions on marriage are unconstitutional twice over: as a racial classification without legitimate purpose and as an intrusion on a fundamental right.

What-ifs

  • Replace race with sex: the Court in Obergefell (2015) used the same due process and equal protection pairing.
  • If the state offered a “legitimate” purpose, strict scrutiny would still require narrow tailoring, which a flat ban cannot meet.

Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables

Virginia said the law applied equally to both races. Why did that not save it?
Equal application does not cure a classification that exists only to maintain racial separation; the Court looks at the purpose and effect, not symmetry.
Which two clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment did the Court use?
Equal Protection (racial classification, strict scrutiny, no legitimate purpose) and Due Process (freedom to marry is a fundamental liberty).
How does Mexico handle this?
Article 1 of the Constitution forbids discrimination by origin or ethnicity, and the Supreme Court has used the same logic for same-sex marriage; the comparison is a good discussion point for Friday.
equal protectionstrict scrutinydue process (procedural and substantive)fundamental right

AssignedAsignado: 2026-10-30

Read the public opinionLeer la opinión (texto público). SourceFuente: Own brief from the public opinion; assigned for Oct 30.