Docket 395
Loving v. Virginia
DecidedJun 12, 1967
9-0unanimous decision
Source: CourtListener.
Supreme Court strikes down state laws banning interracial marriage
What it does
The ruling declares Virginia's ban on interracial marriage, and the criminal convictions of Richard and Mildred Loving under it, unconstitutional. It establishes that laws restricting marriage based solely on racial classifications cannot survive because they violate both equal protection and the fundamental right to marry protected by due process.
Who benefits
Interracial couples in the 16 states that still banned interracial marriage, who can now marry and have those marriages legally recognized without facing criminal prosecution.
Who is affected
State governments in the 16 states with laws banning interracial marriage, which can no longer enforce or prosecute under those statutes.
Practical impact
All state laws banning or criminalizing interracial marriage become unenforceable nationwide, immediately voiding criminal penalties for interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had such laws. Interracial couples gain the same legal right to marry, and have their marriages recognized, as same-race couples.
Majority reasoning
The Court held that laws containing racial classifications are subject to "the most rigid scrutiny," meaning the state must show the law is necessary to accomplish some legitimate purpose unrelated to racial discrimination. The majority rejected Virginia's argument that the law was constitutional simply because it punished white and Black participants in an interracial marriage equally, finding this "equal application" theory insufficient to remove a racial classification from constitutional scrutiny. The Court found no legitimate purpose independent of racial discrimination, noting that because Virginia only prohibited marriages involving white persons with non-white persons, the law's purpose was to maintain white supremacy. Separately, the Court held that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," a fundamental liberty, and that denying this freedom based on racial classifications violates due process. The majority also addressed and rejected Virginia's historical argument that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend it to invalidate such laws, finding the historical record on this point "inconclusive."
Constitutional question
Does a state law that bans and criminally punishes marriage between people of different races violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Precedent changed
The Court rejected the reasoning of Pace v. Alabama (1883), which had upheld equal application of racial classifications in criminal statutes, consistent with its earlier rejection of Pace in McLaughlin v. Florida (1964).