466 U.S. 429 (1984)
When petitioner Linda Sidoti Palmore and respondent Anthony J. Sidoti, both Caucasians, were divorced in May 1980 in Florida, the mother was awarded custody of their 3-year-old daughter.1 In September 1981 the father sought custody of the child by filing a petition to modify the prior judgment because of changed conditions.2 The change was that the child’s mother was then cohabiting with a Negro, Clarence Palmore, Jr., whom she married two months later.3 Additionally, the father made several allegations of instances in which the mother had not properly cared for the child.4
After hearing testimony from both parties and considering a court counselor’s investigative report, the court noted that the father had made allegations about the child’s care, but the court made no findings with respect to these allegations.5 On the contrary, the court made a finding that there is no issue as to either party’s devotion to the child, adequacy of housing facilities, or respectability of the new spouse of either parent.6 The court then addressed the recommendations of the court counselor, who had made an earlier report in another case coming out of this circuit also involving the social consequences of an interracial marriage.7
From this vague reference to that earlier case, the court turned to the present case and noted the counselor’s recommendation for a change in custody because the wife has chosen for herself and for her child, a life-style unacceptable to the father and to society, and the child is or at school age will be subject to environmental pressures not of choice.8 The court then concluded that the best interests of the child would be served by awarding custody to the father.9 The court’s rationale focused on the mother bringing a man into her home and carrying on a sexual relationship without marriage, placing gratification of her own desires ahead of concern for the child’s future welfare, and the inevitable social stigmatization the child would suffer at school age due to the racially mixed household.10
The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed without opinion, thus denying the Florida Supreme Court jurisdiction to review the case.11 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the state court.12
Whether a state court may divest a natural mother of custody of her infant child because of her remarriage to a person of a different race?13
A core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.14 Classifying persons according to their race is more likely to reflect racial prejudice than legitimate public concerns; the race, not the person, dictates the category.15 Such classifications are subject to the most exacting scrutiny; to pass constitutional muster, they must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be necessary to the accomplishment of their legitimate purpose.16 The State has a duty of the highest order to protect the interests of minor children.17 The goal of granting custody based on the best interests of the child is indisputably a substantial governmental interest for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.18 The reality of private biases and the possible injury they might inflict are not permissible considerations for removal of an infant child from the custody of its natural mother.19 The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them.20 Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.21
No. The Florida court's decision to change custody was based solely on the racial composition of the mother's new household.22 The court explicitly relied on anticipated social stigmatization from the racially mixed household rather than any finding of parental unfitness.23 The possible injury from private biases cannot support the removal.24
The state court may not divest a natural mother of custody of her infant child because of her remarriage to a person of a different race.25 Such a decision violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by impermissibly relying on a racial classification that is not justified by a compelling governmental interest.26