Loving+v.+Virginia

__Case Name: __**Loving vs. Virginia ** __Case Date:__ June 12, 1967 __Chief Justice__: Earl Warren: March 19, 1891 - July 7, 1974. Earl was a jurist and politician. He was the 14th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the 30th Governor of California. He was Chief Justice for 10 years (October 2, 1953 - June 23, 1969) He was a judge that made controversial decisions, and his opponents considered him a very boring and dull person. **Why were his decisions controversial?** __Amendments and Documents relevant to the case:__ Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code; Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment (known as one of the Reconstruction Amendments) states that, "no person can be denied equal protection of the laws." On November 6th, 1963, the Lovings filed a motion in the state trial court. They claimed that, what they were being charged with was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because Mildred being African American, wasn't being treated the same way she would if she were a white women. They believed it wasn't equal protection of laws, because Mildred was being treated unfairly. In the end, the court ruled against them, because Richard was a white man and he recieved the same punishment as his wife. The people in the court believed that meant equality. __Summary:__ Richard Loving (a white man) and Mildred Loving (an African American-Native American woman) were married in the District of Columbia to escape a law that prevented their marriage because of Mildred's race.

When they returned to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violating the ban. Police entered their home and charged them with sleeping together without being married. The Lovings defended themselves by showing their marriage certificate, and then the police charged them for being married. They were charged under section 20-58 of the Virginia Code. They were sentenced to a year in jail, but it was suspended for 25 years if they left Virginia. The Lovings moved to D.C in 1963, and filed a motion that this court ruling violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Both the Virginia Supreme Court and the U.S Supreme Court unanimously ruled against them and said that the decision did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because both the white and the black spouse received equal punishment for breaking the law. __Main issue:__ The main issue was that the Lovings could not be married in Virginia. They could not live together in Virginia. According to the Virginia Code, they were fairly convicted. So the only way they could fight it to the Supreme Court was by arguing it violated the 14th Amendment. This angle failed because they were both receiving jail time for being married. __The Vote and Reasons:__ The vote was unanimous. Every member of the court agreed that punishment for interracial marriage did not violate the 14th Amendment because both the white and the black spouse were receiving an equal punishment. __Members of the Court:__ __Our opinion:__ This case is completely ridiculous. Laws preventing two people from getting married should have never existed in the first place. When this case came to the Supreme Court, they should have ruled that it violates constitutional freedoms to prevent two people who love each other to be together. However, based on the laws at the time, the __supreme court__ did rule accurately. **Do you think that if the Lovings had challenged the constitutionality of the Virginia law instead of challenging the punishment that they might have the Virginia code overturned?**
 * Chief Justice: ** Earl Warren.
 * Associate Justices: ** Hugo Black (1937–1971), William O. Douglas (1939-1975), Tom C. Clark (1949-1967), William J. Brennan Jr. (1956-1990), John Marshall Harlan II (1955-1971), Potter Stewart (1958-1981), Bryon R. White (1962-1993), and Abe Fortas (1965-1969).

If the case had gone the other was: If the case had gone the other way, the Lovings would have been able to move back to Virginia and live together as husband and wife. Also, the laws preventing interracial marriage in states like Virginia would have been abolished. **Do you know when these laws were ruled unconstitutional?**

Bibliography- (Picture) Victorian, Brande. "'The Loving Story' Coming to HBO." //Madame Noire//. 30 Dec. 2011. Web. 9 Feb. 2012.

"Loving v. Virginia." //Legal Information Institute//. 10 Apr. 1967. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html>.

"Loving v. Virginia." //UMKC School of Law//. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html>.

Staples, Brent. "Loving v. Virginia and the Secret History of Race." //The New York Times//. The New York Times, 14 May 2008. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/opinion/14wed4.html>.

"Past U.S. Supreme Court Members — Infoplease.com." //Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free Online Reference, Research & Homework Help. — Infoplease.com//. 2007. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. [].

6/7 Biblio - alphabetize, please. 22/28 Content -- I think you've accidentally misread the ruling, b/c this SC case overturned all race-based marriage laws. See excerpt below: //**"Loving v. Virginia**//, 388 [|U.S.] [|1] (1967) ,[|[1]] was a [|landmark] [|civil rights] case in which the [|United States Supreme Court], **in a unanimous decision, declared** [|Virginia]'s [|anti-miscegenation] statute, the "[|Racial Integrity Act of 1924]", **unconstitutional,** thereby overturning //[|Pace v. Alabama]// (1883) and **ending all [|race]-based legal restrictions on [|marriage] in the [|United States]." (from** []) 5/5 Organization - good, but could use spaces between sections.

33/40 Total