Loving Vs Virginia

For my reaction paper, I will be covering the Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia. The Appellant of the case is Richard Loving and the Appellee is the State of Virginia. Richard Loving is a a white man who married Mildred Jeter, a black woman in DC. They resided in Virginia but traveled to DC to get married legally. After acquiring the marriage certificate, they moved back to Virginia. However, the state of Virginia enacted laws that labeled interracial marriages as a felony. It was their antimiscegenation statute, which banned interracial marriages ever since 1924. A few months later, the police found their marriage certificate and they were charged for violating Virginia’s state law. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia upheld the constitutionality …show more content…
They argued that this statute preserved the “racial integrity” of citizens in the State of Virginia. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to 1 year in jail. The trial judge suspended their 1-year jail sentence for 25 years, on the condition that they leave Virginia and nor return together for 25 years. They moved to DC for a few years and moved back to VA to get justice. In response to their arrest, the Lovings appealed and claimed that the state law was immoral and that it violated the United States Constitution.
This case was resolving the following issue: Whether a Virginia statute which prevents marriage between persons solely on the basis of racial classification violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court took on this case. They had a unanimous decision: Held 9-0, …show more content…
If I was a Justice in the Supreme Court, I would agree with their decision. The Court established that Virginia’s law had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The state's argument that the statute was legitimate was overruled because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the US Constitution, Justice Warren said "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.". This is the quote that makes this decision so logical and moral. A citizen in the United States cannot be controlled because of the democracy that is presented in the Constitution. I believe that social relations with someone are a personal matter and the police or state has no right in interfering with that. Also, the court wrote that laws discriminating on the basis of race were subject to the “most rigid scrutiny”. The lowest level, “rational basis”, shows that investigation does not apply in this case, because the law strikes at the core of racial discrimination. The right to marriage is a basic right of humanity and cannot be refuted by anyone on the basis of race. I agree with the Court about

Show More