Judicial branch · Landmark case
Loving v. Virginia
388 U.S. 1 (1967) · Opinion of the Court
What you should know
This page explains the Court’s holding in plain language, where the official text lives, and what to check next.
Supreme Court findings are not news summaries. The controlling document is the Court’s opinion, plus any concurrences or dissents. Use this profile to understand the holding, then verify language, syllabus, and docket history on official sources before relying on a secondary account.
The Court held unanimously that Virginia’s law banning marriage between people of different races violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” and a state cannot restrict it on the basis of race without a legitimate purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination — a test Virginia’s law could not meet.
Background
Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, married in Washington, D.C. in 1958, then returned home to Caroline County, Virginia. Virginia law made interracial marriage a crime. Weeks later, local police entered their bedroom at night and arrested them under the state’s Racial Integrity Act. The Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years. They moved to D.C. and, in 1963, began a legal challenge to get their case reopened.
The case reached the Supreme Court after Virginia’s own Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the law. Virginia argued the statute punished white and non-white participants equally, so no one race was singled out for discrimination — an argument the Court rejected outright.
The right to marry becomes a matter the Constitution protects from state interference on the basis of race.
Loving struck down anti-miscegenation laws still on the books in 16 states at the time. Decades later, the same due-process and equal-protection reasoning became a direct building block for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which extended the right to marry to same-sex couples.
Vote and authorship
| Majority | Warren, C.J. (opinion of the Court) |
|---|---|
| Join | Black, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, White, Fortas |
| Concurrence | Stewart, J. (no valid law can make an act’s criminality depend on the actor’s race) |
| Dissent | None |
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Chief Justice Warren · Loving v. Virginia
How it fits in government
Judicial branch
The Supreme Court’s equal-protection and due-process reasoning here directly shaped how courts evaluate state marriage laws for the next half-century.
Fourteenth Amendment
Both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause do the work in this opinion — a rare case where the Court leans on both grounds rather than choosing one.
Where to verify
Start with the official opinion text, syllabus, and docket materials. Secondary explainers are useful only after the primary record is open.
Official records visitors may need
SupremeCourt.gov
Opinions, docket search, rules, and Court information.
Oyez
Case abstract, oral argument audio, and justice votes.
Opinion text (LII)
Readable public text of Loving v. Virginia.
GovInfo · U.S. Reports Vol. 388
Official published reporter text of the case.
Related research paths
Obergefell v. Hodges
How this case’s due-process/equal-protection reasoning extended to same-sex marriage nearly 50 years later.
Fourteenth Amendment
The Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses this holding rests on.
Equal Protection Clause
How courts apply different levels of scrutiny depending on the classification at issue.
Landmark cases guide
Other holdings that define structural powers and individual rights.