Lovingv.

Virginia
388U.S.1(1967)

Syllabus|Case

U.S.SupremeCourt

Lovingv.Virginia,388U.S.1(1967)

Lovingv.Virginia

No.395

ArguedApril10,1967

DecidedJune12,1967

388U.S.1

APPEALFROMTHESUPREMECOURTOFAPPEALSOFVIRGINIA

Syllabus

Virginia'sstatutoryschemetopreventmarriagesbetweenpersonssolelyonthe
basisofracialclassificationsheldtoviolatetheEqualProtectionandDueProcess
ClausesoftheFourteenthAmendment.Pp.388U.S.412.

206Va.924,147S.E.2d78,reversed.

Page388U.S.2
MR.CHIEFJUSTICEWARRENdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.

ThiscasepresentsaconstitutionalquestionneveraddressedbythisCourt:
whetherastatutoryschemeadoptedbytheStateofVirginiatopreventmarriages
betweenpersonssolelyonthebasisofracialclassificationsviolatestheEqual
ProtectionandDueProcessClausesoftheFourteenthAmendment.[Footnote1]
Forreasonswhichseemtoustoreflectthecentralmeaningofthoseconstitutional
commands,weconcludethatthesestatutescannotstandconsistentlywiththe
FourteenthAmendment.

InJune,1958,tworesidentsofVirginia,MildredJeter,aNegrowoman,and
RichardLoving,awhiteman,weremarriedintheDistrictofColumbiapursuant
toitslaws.Shortlyaftertheirmarriage,theLovingsreturnedtoVirginiaand
establishedtheirmaritalabodeinCarolineCounty.AttheOctoberTerm,1958,of
theCircuitCourt

Page388U.S.3

ofCarolineCounty,agrandjuryissuedanindictmentchargingtheLovingswith
violatingVirginia'sbanoninterracialmarriages.OnJanuary6,199,theLovings
pleadedguiltytothecharge,andweresentencedtooneyearinjailhowever,the
trialjudgesuspendedthesentenceforaperiodof25yearsontheconditionthat
theLovingsleavetheStateandnotreturntoVirginiatogetherfor25years.He
statedinanopinionthat:

"AlmightyGodcreatedtheraceswhite,black,yellow,malayandred,andhe
placedthemonseparatecontinents.And,butfortheinterferencewithhis
arrangement,therewouldbenocauseforsuchmarriage.Thefactthathe
separatedtheracesshowsthathedidnotintendfortheracestomix."

Aftertheirconvictions,theLovingstookupresidenceintheDistrictofColumbia.
OnNovember6,1963,theyfiledamotioninthestatetrialcourttovacatethe
judgmentandsetasidethesentenceonthegroundthatthestatuteswhichthey
hadviolatedwererepugnanttotheFourteenthAmendment.Themotionnot
havingbeendecidedbyOctober28,1964,theLovingsinstitutedaclassactionin
theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofVirginiarequestingthat
athreejudgecourtbeconvenedtodeclaretheVirginiaantimiscegenation
statutesunconstitutionalandtoenjoinstateofficialsfromenforcingtheir
convictions.OnJanuary22,1965,thestatetrialjudgedeniedthemotiontovacate
thesentences,andtheLovingsperfectedanappealtotheSupremeCourtof
AppealsofVirginia.OnFebruary11,1965,thethreejudgeDistrictCourt
continuedthecasetoallowtheLovingstopresenttheirconstitutionalclaimsto
thehigheststatecourt.

TheSupremeCourtofAppealsupheldtheconstitutionalityoftheanti
miscegenationstatutesand,after

Page388U.S.4

modifyingthesentence,affirmedtheconvictions.[Footnote2]TheLovings
appealedthisdecision,andwenotedprobablejurisdictiononDecember12,1966,
385U.S.986.

Thetwostatutesunderwhichappellantswereconvictedandsentencedarepartof
acomprehensivestatutoryschemeaimedatprohibitingandpunishinginterracial
marriages.TheLovingswereconvictedofviolating258oftheVirginiaCode:

"LeavingStatetoevadelaw.Ifanywhitepersonandcoloredpersonshallgo
outofthisState,forthepurposeofbeingmarried,andwiththeintentionof
returning,andbemarriedoutofit,andafterwardsreturntoandresideinit,
cohabitingasmanandwife,theyshallbepunishedasprovidedin2059,andthe
marriageshallbegovernedbythesamelawasifithadbeensolemnizedinthis
State.Thefactoftheircohabitationhereasmanandwifeshallbeevidenceoftheir
marriage."

Section259,whichdefinesthepenaltyformiscegenation,provides:

"Punishmentformarriage.Ifanywhitepersonintermarrywithacolored
person,oranycoloredpersonintermarrywithawhiteperson,heshallbeguiltyof
afelonyandshallbepunishedbyconfinementinthepenitentiaryfornotlessthan
onenormorethanfiveyears."

OthercentralprovisionsintheVirginiastatutoryschemeare2057,which
automaticallyvoidsallmarriagesbetween"awhitepersonandacoloredperson"
withoutanyjudicialproceeding,[Footnote3]and2054and114which,

Page388U.S.5

respectively,define"whitepersons"and"coloredpersonsandIndians"for
purposesofthestatutoryprohibitions.[Footnote4]TheLovingshavenever
disputedinthecourseofthislitigationthatMrs.Lovingisa"coloredperson"or
thatMr.Lovingisa"whiteperson"withinthemeaningsgiventhosetermsbythe
Virginiastatutes.

Page388U.S.6

Virginiaisnowoneof16Stateswhichprohibitandpunishmarriagesonthebasis
ofracialclassifications.[Footnote5]Penaltiesformiscegenationaroseasan
incidenttoslavery,andhavebeencommoninVirginiasincethecolonialperiod.
[Footnote6]ThepresentstatutoryschemedatesfromtheadoptionoftheRacial
IntegrityActof1924,passedduringtheperiodofextremenativismwhich
followedtheendoftheFirstWorldWar.ThecentralfeaturesofthisAct,and
currentVirginialaw,aretheabsoluteprohibitionofa"whiteperson"marrying
otherthananother"whiteperson,"[Footnote7]aprohibitionagainstissuing
marriagelicensesuntiltheissuingofficialissatisfiedthat

Page388U.S.7

theapplicants'statementsastotheirracearecorrect,[Footnote8]certificatesof
"racialcomposition"tobekeptbybothlocalandstateregistrars,[Footnote9]and
thecarryingforwardofearlierprohibitionsagainstracialintermarriage.[Footnote
10]

I
Inupholdingtheconstitutionalityoftheseprovisionsinthedecisionbelow,the
SupremeCourtofAppealsofVirginiareferredtoits1965decisioninNaimv.
Naim,197Va.80,87S.E.2d749,asstatingthereasonssupportingthevalidityof
theselaws.InNaim,thestatecourtconcludedthattheState'slegitimatepurposes
were"topreservetheracialintegrityofitscitizens,"andtoprevent"thecorruption
ofblood,""amongrelbreedofcitizens,"and"theobliterationofracialpride,"
obviouslyanendorsementofthedoctrineofWhiteSupremacy.Id.at90,87
S.E.2dat756.Thecourtalsoreasonedthatmarriagehastraditionallybeensubject
tostateregulationwithoutfederalintervention,and,consequently,theregulation
ofmarriageshouldbelefttoexclusivestatecontrolbytheTenthAmendment.

Whilethestatecourtisnodoubtcorrectinassertingthatmarriageisasocial
relationsubjecttotheState'spolicepower,Maynardv.Hill,125U.S.190(1888),
theStatedoesnotcontendinitsargumentbeforethisCourtthatitspowersto
regulatemarriageareunlimitednotwithstandingthecommandsoftheFourteenth
Amendment.NorcoulditdosoinlightofMeyerv.Nebraska,262U.S.390
(1923),andSkinnerv.Oklahoma,316U.S.535(1942).Instead,theStateargues
thatthemeaningoftheEqualProtectionClause,asilluminatedbythestatements
oftheFramers,isonlythatstatepenallawscontaininganinterracialelement

Page388U.S.8

aspartofthedefinitionoftheoffensemustapplyequallytowhitesandNegroesin
thesensethatmembersofeachracearepunishedtothesamedegree.Thus,the
Statecontendsthat,becauseitsmiscegenationstatutespunishequallyboththe
whiteandtheNegroparticipantsinaninterracialmarriage,thesestatutes,despite
theirrelianceonracialclassifications,donotconstituteaninvidious
discriminationbaseduponrace.ThesecondargumentadvancedbytheState
assumesthevalidityofitsequalapplicationtheory.Theargumentisthat,ifthe
EqualProtectionClausedoesnotoutlawmiscegenationstatutesbecauseoftheir
relianceonracialclassifications,thequestionofconstitutionalitywouldthus
becomewhethertherewasanyrationalbasisforaStatetotreatinterracial
marriagesdifferentlyfromothermarriages.Onthisquestion,theStateargues,the
scientificevidenceissubstantiallyindoubtand,consequently,thisCourtshould
defertothewisdomofthestatelegislatureinadoptingitspolicyofdiscouraging
interracialmarriages.

Becausewerejectthenotionthatthemere"equalapplication"ofastatute
containingracialclassificationsisenoughtoremovetheclassificationsfromthe
FourteenthAmendment'sproscriptionofallinvidiousracialdiscriminations,we
donotaccepttheState'scontentionthatthesestatutesshouldbeupheldifthereis
anypossiblebasisforconcludingthattheyservearationalpurpose.Themerefact
ofequalapplicationdoesnotmeanthatouranalysisofthesestatutesshould
followtheapproachwehavetakenincasesinvolvingnoracialdiscrimination
wheretheEqualProtectionClausehasbeenarrayedagainstastatute
discriminatingbetweenthekindsofadvertisingwhichmaybedisplayedontrucks
inNewYorkCity,RailwayExpressAgency,Inc.v.NewYork,336U.S.106
(1949),oranexemptioninOhio'sadvaloremtaxformerchandiseownedbya
nonresidentinastoragewarehouse,AlliedStoresofOhio,

Page388U.S.9

Inc.v.Bowers,358U.S.522(1959).Inthesecases,involvingdistinctionsnot
drawnaccordingtorace,theCourthasmerelyaskedwhetherthereisanyrational
foundationforthediscriminations,andhasdeferredtothewisdomofthestate
legislatures.Inthecaseatbar,however,wedealwithstatutescontainingracial
classifications,andthefactofequalapplicationdoesnotimmunizethestatute
fromtheveryheavyburdenofjustificationwhichtheFourteenthAmendmenthas
traditionallyrequiredofstatestatutesdrawnaccordingtorace.

TheStatearguesthatstatementsintheThirtyninthCongressaboutthetimeof
thepassageoftheFourteenthAmendmentindicatethattheFramersdidnot
intendtheAmendmenttomakeunconstitutionalstatemiscegenationlaws.Many
ofthestatementsalludedtobytheStateconcernthedebatesovertheFreedmen's
BureauBill,whichPresidentJohnsonvetoed,andtheCivilRightsActof1866,14
Stat.27,enactedoverhisveto.Whilethesestatementshavesomerelevancetothe
intentionofCongressinsubmittingtheFourteenthAmendment,itmustbe
understoodthattheypertainedtothepassageofspecificstatutes,andnottothe
broader,organicpurposeofaconstitutionalamendment.Asforthevarious
statementsdirectlyconcerningtheFourteenthAmendment,wehavesaidin
connectionwitharelatedproblemthat,althoughthesehistoricalsources"cast
somelight"theyarenotsufficienttoresolvetheproblem

"[a]tbest,theyareinconclusive.ThemostavidproponentsofthepostWar
Amendmentsundoubtedlyintendedthemtoremovealllegaldistinctionsamong
'allpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates.'Theiropponents,justas
certainly,wereantagonistictoboththeletterandthespiritoftheAmendments,
andwishedthemtohavethemostlimitedeffect."

Brownv.BoardofEducation,347U.S.483,347U.S.489(1954).Seealso
Strauder

Page388U.S.10

v.WestVirginia,100U.S.303,100U.S.310(1880).Wehaverejectedthe
propositionthatthedebatesintheThirtyninthCongressorinthestate
legislatureswhichratifiedtheFourteenthAmendmentsupportedthetheory
advancedbytheState,thattherequirementofequalprotectionofthelawsis
satisfiedbypenallawsdefiningoffensesbasedonracialclassificationssolongas
whiteandNegroparticipantsintheoffenseweresimilarlypunished.McLaughlin
v.Florida,379U.S.184(1964).

TheStatefindssupportforits"equalapplication"theoryinthedecisionofthe
CourtinPacev.Alabama,106U.S.583(1883).Inthatcase,theCourtuphelda
convictionunderanAlabamastatuteforbiddingadulteryorfornicationbetweena
whitepersonandaNegrowhichimposedagreaterpenaltythanthatofastatute
proscribingsimilarconductbymembersofthesamerace.TheCourtreasoned
thatthestatutecouldnotbesaidtodiscriminateagainstNegroesbecausethe
punishmentforeachparticipantintheoffensewasthesame.However,asrecently
asthe1964Term,inrejectingthereasoningofthatcase,westated"Pace
representsalimitedviewoftheEqualProtectionClausewhichhasnotwithstood
analysisinthesubsequentdecisionsofthisCourt."McLaughlinv.Florida,supra,
at379U.S.188.Aswetheredemonstrated,theEqualProtectionClauserequires
theconsiderationofwhethertheclassificationsdrawnbyanystatuteconstitutean
arbitraryandinvidiousdiscrimination.Theclearandcentralpurposeofthe
FourteenthAmendmentwastoeliminateallofficialstatesourcesofinvidious
racialdiscriminationintheStates.SlaughterHouseCases,16Wall.36,83U.S.
71(1873)Strauderv.WestVirginia,100U.S.303,100U.S.307308(1880)Ex
parteVirginia,100U.S.339,100U.S.334335(1880)Shelleyv.Kraemer,334
U.S.1(1948)Burtonv.WilmingtonParkingAuthority,365U.S.715(1961).

Page388U.S.11

TherecanbenoquestionbutthatVirginia'smiscegenationstatutesrestsolely
upondistinctionsdrawnaccordingtorace.Thestatutesproscribegenerally
acceptedconductifengagedinbymembersofdifferentraces.Overtheyears,this
Courthasconsistentlyrepudiated"[d]istinctionsbetweencitizenssolelybecause
oftheirancestry"asbeing"odioustoafreepeoplewhoseinstitutionsarefounded
uponthedoctrineofequality."Hirabayashiv.UnitedStates,320U.S.81,320U.
S.100(1943).Attheveryleast,theEqualProtectionClausedemandsthatracial
classifications,especiallysuspectincriminalstatutes,besubjectedtothe"most
rigidscrutiny,"Korematsuv.UnitedStates,323U.S.214,323U.S.216(1944),
and,iftheyareevertobeupheld,theymustbeshowntobenecessarytothe
accomplishmentofsomepermissiblestateobjective,independentoftheracial
discriminationwhichitwastheobjectoftheFourteenthAmendmenttoeliminate.
Indeed,twomembersofthisCourthavealreadystatedthatthey

"cannotconceiveofavalidlegislativepurpose...whichmakesthecolorofa
person'sskinthetestofwhetherhisconductisacriminaloffense."

McLaughlinv.Florida,supra,at379U.S.198(STEWART,J.,joinedby
DOUGLAS,J.,concurring).

Thereispatentlynolegitimateoverridingpurposeindependentofinvidiousracial
discriminationwhichjustifiesthisclassification.ThefactthatVirginiaprohibits
onlyinterracialmarriagesinvolvingwhitepersonsdemonstratesthattheracial
classificationsmuststandontheirownjustification,asmeasuresdesignedto
maintainWhiteSupremacy.[Footnote11]Wehaveconsistentlydenied

Page388U.S.12

theconstitutionalityofmeasureswhichrestricttherightsofcitizensonaccountof
race.Therecanbenodoubtthatrestrictingthefreedomtomarrysolelybecauseof
racialclassificationsviolatesthecentralmeaningoftheEqualProtectionClause.

II

ThesestatutesalsodeprivetheLovingsoflibertywithoutdueprocessoflawin
violationoftheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.Thefreedom
tomarryhaslongbeenrecognizedasoneofthevitalpersonalrightsessentialto
theorderlypursuitofhappinessbyfreemen.

Marriageisoneofthe"basiccivilrightsofman,"fundamentaltoourvery
existenceandsurvival.Skinnerv.Oklahoma,316U.S.535,316U.S.541(1942).
SeealsoMaynardv.Hill,125U.S.190(1888).Todenythisfundamentalfreedom
onsounsupportableabasisastheracialclassificationsembodiedinthese
statutes,classificationssodirectlysubversiveoftheprincipleofequalityatthe
heartoftheFourteenthAmendment,issurelytodeprivealltheState'scitizensof
libertywithoutdueprocessoflaw.TheFourteenthAmendmentrequiresthatthe
freedomofchoicetomarrynotberestrictedbyinvidiousracialdiscriminations.
UnderourConstitution,thefreedomtomarry,ornotmarry,apersonofanother
raceresideswiththeindividual,andcannotbeinfringedbytheState.

Theseconvictionsmustbereversed.

Itissoordered.

Page388U.S.13

[Footnote1]
Section1oftheFourteenthAmendmentprovides:

"AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttothe
jurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStatewhereinthey
reside.NoStateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichshallabridgetheprivileges
orimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesnorshallanyStatedepriveany
personoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflawnordenytoany
personwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws."

[Footnote2]

206Va.924,147S.E.2d78(1966).

[Footnote3]

Section257oftheVirginiaCodeprovides:

"Marriagesvoidwithoutdecree.Allmarriagesbetweenawhitepersonanda
coloredpersonshallbeabsolutelyvoidwithoutanydecreeofdivorceorotherlegal
process."

Va.CodeAnn.2057(1960Repl.Vol.).

[Footnote4]

Section2054oftheVirginiaCodeprovides:

"Intermarriageprohibitedmeaningofterm'whitepersons.'Itshallhereafter
beunlawfulforanywhitepersoninthisStatetomarryanysaveawhiteperson,or
apersonwithnootheradmixtureofbloodthanwhiteandAmericanIndian.For
thepurposeofthischapter,theterm'whiteperson'shallapplyonlytosuchperson
ashasnotracewhateverofanybloodotherthanCaucasianbutpersonswhohave
onesixteenthorlessofthebloodoftheAmericanIndianandhavenoothernon
Caucasicbloodshallbedeemedtobewhitepersons.Alllawsheretoforepassed
andnowineffectregardingtheintermarriageofwhiteandcoloredpersonsshall
applytomarriagesprohibitedbythischapter."
Va.CodeAnn.2054(1960Repl.Vol.).

Theexceptionforpersonswithlessthanonesixteenth"ofthebloodofthe
AmericanIndian"isapparentlyaccountedfor,inthewordsofatractissuedbythe
RegistraroftheStateBureauofVitalStatistics,by"thedesireofalltorecognizeas
anintegralandhonoredpartofthewhiteracethedescendantsofJohnRolfeand
Pocathontas...."Plecker,TheNewFamilyandRaceImprovement,17Va.Health
Bull.,ExtraNo.12,at2526(NewFamilySeriesNo.5,1925),citedinWadlington,
TheLovingCase:Virginia'sAntiMiscegenationStatuteinHistoricalPerspective,
52Va.L.Rev.1189,1202,n.93(1966).

Section114oftheVirginiaCodeprovides:

"ColoredpersonsandIndiansdefined.Everypersoninwhomthereis
ascertainableanyNegrobloodshallbedeemedandtakentobeacoloredperson,
andeverypersonnotacoloredpersonhavingonefourthormoreofAmerican
IndianbloodshallbedeemedanAmericanIndianexceptthatmembersofIndian
tribesexistinginthisCommonwealthhavingonefourthormoreofIndianblood
andlessthanonesixteenthofNegrobloodshallbedeemedtribalIndians."

Va.CodeAnn.114(1960Repl.Vol.).

[Footnote5]

Aftertheinitiationofthislitigation,Marylandrepealeditsprohibitionsagainst
interracialmarriage,Md.Laws1967,c.6,leavingVirginiaand15otherStateswith
statutesoutlawinginterracialmarriage:Alabama,Ala.Const.,Art.4,102,
Ala.Code,Tit.14,360(1958)Arkansas,Ark.Stat.Ann.55104(1947)
Delaware,Del.CodeAnn.,Tit.13,101(1953)Florida,Fla.Const.,Art.16,24,
Fla.Stat.741.11(1965)Georgia,Ga.CodeAnn.53106(1961)Kentucky,
Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann.402.020(Supp.1966)Louisiana,La.Rev.Stat.14:79(1950)
Mississippi,Miss.Const.,Art.14,263,Miss.CodeAnn.459(1956)Missouri,
Mo.Rev.Stat.451.020(Supp.1966)NorthCarolina,N.C.Const.,Art.XIV,8,
N.C.Gen.Stat.14181(1953)Oklahoma,Okla.Stat.,Tit.43,12(Supp.1965)
SouthCarolina,S.C.Const.,Art.3,33,S.C.CodeAnn.207(1962)Tennessee,
Tenn.Const.,Art.11,14,Tenn.CodeAnn.36402(1955)Texas,Tex.Pen.Code,
Art.492(1952)WestVirginia,W.Va.CodeAnn.4697(1961).

Overthepast15years,14Stateshaverepealedlawsoutlawinginterracial
marriages:Arizona,California,Colorado,Idaho,Indiana,Maryland,Montana,
Nebraska,Nevada,NorthDakota,Oregon,SouthDakota,Utah,andWyoming.

ThefirststatecourttorecognizethatmiscegenationstatutesviolatetheEqual
ProtectionClausewastheSupremeCourtofCalifornia.Perezv.Sharp,32Cal.2d
711,198P.2d17(1948).

[Footnote6]

ForahistoricaldiscussionofVirginia'smiscegenationstatutes,seeWadlington,
supra,n4.

[Footnote7]

Va.CodeAnn.2054(1960Repl.Vol.).

[Footnote8]

Va.CodeAnn.2053(1960Repl.Vol.).

[Footnote9]

Va.CodeAnn.2050(1960Repl.Vol.).

[Footnote10]

Va.CodeAnn.254(1960Repl.Vol.).

[Footnote11]

AppellantspointoutthattheState'sconcerninthesestatutes,asexpressedinthe
wordsofthe1924Act'stitle,"AnActtoPreserveRacialIntegrity,"extendsonlyto
theintegrityofthewhiterace.WhileVirginiaprohibitswhitesfrommarryingany
nonwhite(subjecttotheexceptionforthedescendantsofPocahontas),Negroes,
Orientals,andanyotherracialclassmayintermarrywithoutstatutory
interference.AppellantscontendthatthisdistinctionrendersVirginia's
miscegenationstatutesarbitraryandunreasonableevenassumingthe
constitutionalvalidityofanofficialpurposetopreserve"racialintegrity."Weneed
notreachthiscontention,becausewefindtheracialclassificationsinthese
statutesrepugnanttotheFourteenthAmendment,evenassuminganevenhanded
statepurposetoprotectthe"integrity"ofallraces.

MR.JUSTICESTEWART,concurring.

Ihavepreviouslyexpressedthebeliefthat"itissimplynotpossibleforastatelaw
tobevalidunderourConstitutionwhichmakesthecriminalityofanactdepend
upontheraceoftheactor."McLaughlinv.Florida,379U.S.184,379U.S.198
(concurringopinion).BecauseIadheretothatbelief,Iconcurinthejudgmentof
theCourt.

Disclaimer:OfficialSupremeCourtcaselawisonlyfoundintheprintversionoftheUnited
StatesReports.Justiacaselawisprovidedforgeneralinformationalpurposesonly,andmay
notreflectcurrentlegaldevelopments,verdictsorsettlements.Wemakenowarrantiesor
guaranteesabouttheaccuracy,completeness,oradequacyoftheinformationcontainedon
thissiteorinformationlinkedtofromthissite.Pleasecheckofficialsources.