Loving v. Virginia is the June 12, 1967 Supreme Court decision that unanimously struck down every state law banning interracial marriage in the United States. The ruling invalidated anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia and the 15 other states that still enforced them, holding that such laws violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case took its name from Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a woman of Native American Rappahannock descent whom Virginia classified as “colored.”
The Virginia Law at the Center of the Case
Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924 made it illegal for any white person in the state to marry a non-white person, with a narrow exception for those with no more than one-sixteenth Native American ancestry.1Encyclopedia Virginia. Preservation of Racial Integrity (1924) A companion provision closed the obvious loophole: if a white person and a person classified as “colored” left Virginia to marry and then returned to live together, the marriage was void and the couple faced the same criminal penalties as if they had married in the state.2Supreme Court of the United States. Loving v. Virginia Interracial marriage was a felony carrying one to five years in prison.3Library of Virginia. Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1958-1966
How the Lovings’ Case Began
Richard and Mildred Loving married in Washington, D.C. in June 1958 and returned to Caroline County, Virginia, to live. Within weeks, police entered their home at night, found the couple in bed, and discovered their D.C. marriage certificate hanging on the bedroom wall. They were arrested and charged with violating the state’s ban.4Justia. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty. Judge Leon M. Bazile sentenced them to one year in jail but suspended the sentence on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years.4Justia. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) Bazile defended the law in theological terms, writing that “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” and that the separation showed “he did not intend for the races to mix.”5Library of Virginia. Judge Leon M. Bazile, Indictment for Felony The Lovings moved to Washington, D.C.
In June 1963, Mildred Loving wrote to Attorney General Robert Kennedy. She explained that she and her husband had three children, could not afford a lawyer, and wanted to visit their families. Kennedy referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union, which assigned two Virginia attorneys, Bernard Cohen and Philip Hirschkop, to challenge the convictions. After the trial court declined to act, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the anti-miscegenation laws, relying on its own 1955 decision in Naim v. Naim, which had described the statutes as necessary to “preserve the racial integrity of its citizens” and prevent “the corruption of blood.”3Library of Virginia. Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1958-1966 The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.6Supreme Court of the United States. 388 U.S. 1 – Loving v. Virginia
What the Supreme Court Decided
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court, holding that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statutes violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.4Justia. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Virginia had argued that its law treated the races equally because both partners in an interracial marriage faced the same punishment. The Court rejected that reasoning. Racial classifications, Warren wrote, must “be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny” and can only survive if they are “necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination.” Virginia’s own courts had said the purpose of the law was to preserve “racial integrity” and prevent “the obliteration of racial pride.” The Supreme Court called that what it was: an endorsement of white supremacy with no legitimate constitutional footing.6Supreme Court of the United States. 388 U.S. 1 – Loving v. Virginia
On due process, Warren grounded the decision in the fundamental right to marry: “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Denying that right based on race, he wrote, “is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.” The opinion closed with the line most often quoted from the case: “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”4Justia. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
What Changed After Loving
The decision immediately voided anti-miscegenation laws in the 15 other states still enforcing them, all in the South. Removing the dead language from state law took much longer. South Carolina did not strike its constitutional prohibition until 1998, and Alabama became the last state to do so in 2000, when voters approved a ballot measure repealing the provision.
Loving’s reach extended beyond interracial marriage. The Court’s holding that marriage is a fundamental right protected by both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses became a foundation for later cases, most prominently Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which cited Loving in recognizing a constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples. Mildred Loving died in 2008, a year after publicly stating that she hoped the principles of her case would extend to all Americans seeking the right to marry.