Loving v. Virginia
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case involved Richard Loving, a white man, and his wife Mildred Loving, a woman of color. In 1958, the couple married in Washington, D.C., to evade Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which criminalized marriage between people classified as “white” and those classified as “colored.” Shortly after returning to their home in Caroline County, Virginia, local police raided their residence in the early morning, hoping to find them engaged in interracial sex, which was also illegal. Despite the couple displaying their marriage certificate, officers declared it invalid in Virginia. In 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to cohabiting as man and wife and were sentenced to one year in prison, suspended on condition they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years. They moved to Washington, D.C. In 1963, Mildred Loving wrote to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who referred the case to the American Civil Liberties Union. Attorneys Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop filed a motion to vacate the convictions, arguing the Virginia laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment. After the state courts denied relief, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Virginia argued the law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it punished both white and non-white offenders equally. The Court unanimously rejected this, finding the law was based solely on racial distinctions and outlawed the generally accepted conduct of marriage. The decision struck down all remaining anti-miscegenation laws in 16 states, ending race-based marriage restrictions nationwide. Beginning in 2013, the ruling was cited as precedent in federal decisions that struck down same-sex marriage bans, including the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.
- Plaintiffs
- Richard Loving and Mildred Loving
- Legal issue
- Constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws
- Court
- United States Supreme Court
- Key constitutional clauses
- Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
Quick Facts
- Litigants
- Loving v. Virginia
- Arguedate
- April 10
- Argueyear
- 1967
- Decidedate
- June 12
- Fullname
- Richard Perry Loving, Mildred (Jeter) Loving v. Virginia
- Usvol
- 388
- Uspage
- 1
- Parallelcitations
- 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1082
- Holding
- The prohibition of marriages between people based solely on racial classifications is unconstitutional.
- Oralargument
- https: · www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395/argument
- Majority
- Warren
- Joinmajority
- unanimous
Facts from the source article.
Lore & Background
Richard Perry Loving was a white man, the son of Lola (Allen) Loving and Twillie Loving. Mildred Delores Loving was the daughter of Musial (Byrd) Jeter and Theoliver Jeter; she self-identified as Indian-Rappahannock, but was also reported as being of Cherokee, Portuguese, and black American ancestry. Their families both lived in Caroline County, Virginia, which adhered to strict Jim Crow segregation laws, but their town of Central Point had been a visible mixed-race community since the 19th century. in order to marry. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. They were told the certificate was not valid in Virginia.
Reader's Guide
The Lovings were charged under Virginia Code sections that prohibited interracial couples from marrying out of state and then returning to Virginia, and classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by one to five years in prison. After pleading guilty to cohabiting as man and wife, they received a one-year suspended sentence on condition they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years. Following their move to the District of Columbia, Mildred Loving wrote to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU assigned volunteer attorneys Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop, who filed a motion to vacate the convictions on the grounds that the Virginia miscegenation statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. After the county court judge denied the motion, the attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which upheld the law, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a unanimous 1967 decision, the Court held that laws banning interracial marriage violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. The Court rejected Virginia’s argument that the law equally burdened both races, finding it was based solely on racial distinctions and outlawed conduct—marriage—that was otherwise generally accepted. This decision ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. Beginning in 2013, the ruling was cited as precedent in federal court decisions that struck down same-sex marriage restrictions, including the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision.
Did You Know?
- Judge Leon M. Bazile denied the Lovings' motion to vacate their convictions, stating that 'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.'
- The Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are Loving v. Virginia's powers or role?
The case functions as the definitive judicial ruling that state laws criminalizing or prohibiting marriage between people of different races are unconstitutional. It established that such statutes cannot survive scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Why is Loving v. Virginia important?
It is the landmark decision that ended all remaining legal bans on interracial marriage in the United States, making the right to marry regardless of race a constitutional guarantee. The case is routinely cited as a cornerstone of equal-protection jurisprudence and later served as a key precedent in marriage-equality litigation.
Which constitutional clauses are central to Loving v. Virginia?
The Court grounded its holding in both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, finding that the Virginia statute violated each provision independently.
More in Constitutional Law 1-24
Spotted an error? Know more?
This is a living reference — every entry is fact-audited, and reader corrections feed straight into our audit queue. Suggest an edit · See this site's audit record