BC: the end... | by: Emily Cooke & Lydia Waldron block: 1
FC: Loving V. Virginia
1: Table of Contents: | page 1: table of contents page 2:Background page 3: background cont... page 4: background cont... page 5: background cont... page 6: case information page 7: case information cont.. page 8: Case information cont.. page 9: Case information cont.. page 10:reaching the supreme court page 11: reaching the supreme court cont... page 12: reaching the supreme court cont... page 13: reaching the supreme court cont... page 14: aftermath page 15: aftermath cont... page 16: aftermath cont...
2: Background: | - | -Took place in Central Point, Virginia which is very rural -Mildred Loving was part African American and part Native American, her husband, Richard Loving was white
3: -The lovings moved to the District of Columbia - The police went into their home in the night in hopes of finding this couple in the act of sex, which is another crime for blacks and whites -When the police entered the Lovings home they pointed to their wedding certificate on the wall but it ended up hurting them not defending them - they were not allowed to go out of state to get married so this got them into more trouble than they thought
4: Background: | - the lovings met in Caroline county at a local dance, from then on they continued a long courtship -At the time of their marriage in 1958, Virginia had a Racial Integrity Act which banned interracial marriages
5: - the couple went to the District of Colombia instead to get married - On July 13, 1958 Mildred and Richard were startled at 2am when the police barged in their house and arrested them for illegal interracial marriage - They were released with a $1,000 fine until their trial
6: -Chief Justice Earl Warren was the justice during the time of this case. -In circuit court the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge
7: Case Information | -the lovings were charged under section 20-58 of Virginia code and section 20-59, possible prison punishment of 1-5 years --The American Civil liberties Union helped the lovings in the state trial court under the 14th amendment
8: case information cont.... | -The Lovings' brief included legal arguments interspersed with references to sociology and anthropology. -The Lovings' appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia was denied in 1966, setting the stage for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. -Virginia's law had been passed in 1691 and, after being amended several times, reached its final version in the Racial Integrity Act, passed by the Virginia General Assembly on March 20, 1924.
9: -Although every state with such a law banned marriage between a white person and an African American, some laws, including Virginia's, went further and prohibited marriage between whites and other non-white ethnic groups such as Asians and Native Americans. -Amicus briefs (statements and information presented on behalf of organizations not directly involved with the case) were filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Japanese-American Citizen's League, and a consortium of Catholic bishops and other sympathetic organizations.
10: Reaching the Supreme Court | -Circuit court of Caroline county (where the Lovings lived) charged with violating Virginia's ban of interracial marriage -The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction on June 12, 196 , dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race
11: -Providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. -The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
12: Reaching the Supreme Court continued... | -The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. -The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. -We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race.
14: - | Cases that were influenced by Loving vs. Virginia: -Pace v. Alabama (1883) -Kirby v. Kirby (1921) -Perez v. Sharp (1948) - Monks case -Naim v. Naim (1955)
15: Aftermath | -The laws and constitutions of some states still banned inter-racial marriages. However the decision by the Supreme Court annulled them. - The people of Alabama voted in the general election of 2000 to delete the clause from their constitution. However the vote was narrow. Only 60% of voters supported the repeal.
16: Aftermath continued... | This case served as a basis for any case that deals with inter-racial marriage.
17: -Currently racism dies hard in some states. A survey in showed that 46% of Republican voters in Mississippi favor making interracial marriages illegal in the state. Only 40% prefer keeping them legal. | - It might get Americans to consider what is happening elsewhere in the country where the marriage rights of loving, committed same-sex couples are routinely voted upon and decided by 50% of the voters.