Loving v. Virginia

Week 11 — Race — Strict Scrutiny

Facts

  • Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute prohibited interracial marriage between whites and non-whites.
  • The law applied equally to all races—both the white and the non-white spouse were criminally punished.
  • Mildred and Richard Loving, an interracial couple, challenged the law.

Issue

Whether Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated the Equal Protection Clause despite its formally equal application to all races.

Holding

Yes. The statute violated the EPC and was unconstitutional.

Reasoning

  • "Equal application" of a statute containing a racial classification does not make it constitutional.
  • A government action with any racial classification must be necessary for a compelling purpose.
  • Virginia could not articulate any legitimate—much less compelling—non-discriminatory purpose for the law; it served only to maintain white supremacy.

Notes

  • Loving ended anti-miscegenation statutes nationwide.
  • Distinguished in Palmer v. Thompson: both involved government action motivated by racial animus that technically affected all races the same. The difference was that the statute in Loving was facially discriminatory, whereas the action in Palmer was not.
  • Loving is also a foundational fundamental-rights case.