388 U.S. 1 (1967)
In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws.1 Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County.2 At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages.3 On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years.4
After their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia.5 On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the ground that the statutes which they had violated were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment.6 The motion not having been decided by October 28, 1964, the Lovings instituted a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requesting that a three-judge court be convened to declare the Virginia antimiscegenation statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin state officials from enforcing their convictions.7 On January 22, 1965, the state trial judge denied the motion to vacate the sentences, and the Lovings perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.8 On February 11, 1965, the three-judge District Court continued the case to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the highest state court.9
The Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation statutes and, after modifying the sentence, affirmed the convictions.10 The Lovings appealed this decision, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction on December 12, 1966.11 The two statutes under which the Lovings were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages, specifically Virginia Code sections 20-58 and 20-59.12 Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications, and the present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.13
Whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?14
Racial classifications in state statutes are subject to the most rigid scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.15 They must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective independent of the racial discrimination which the Amendment was intended to eliminate.
Yes. The Virginia antimiscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race.16 The Lovings were convicted under Code sections 20-58 and 20-59 after returning from their District of Columbia marriage and establishing residence in Caroline County. These provisions form part of a comprehensive scheme dating from the 1924 Racial Integrity Act that prohibits and punishes interracial marriages.17 No legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination justifies the classification.18 The statutes demonstrate an intent to maintain White Supremacy.
The statutory scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.19
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stewart filed a concurring opinion.20 He reiterated his previously expressed belief that it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor. Stewart had stated this view in his concurring opinion in McLaughlin v. Florida.
Because he continued to adhere to that belief in the present case, he concurred in the judgment of the Court.
Whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?21
Yes. The Lovings were deprived of liberty without due process of law when they were convicted under the antimiscegenation statutes for their interracial marriage after returning to Virginia.24 The statutes denied the fundamental freedom to marry on the unsupportable basis of racial classifications that are subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The statutory scheme violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.25