View source for Loving v. Virginia

{{short description|1967 U.S. Supreme Court case on interracial marriage}}
{{Use American English|date=September 2025}}
{{use mdy dates|date=July 2021}}
{{Infobox US Supreme Court case
| Litigants = Loving v. Virginia
| ArgueDate = April 10
| ArgueYear = 1967
| DecideDate = June 12
| DecideYear = 1967
| FullName = [[Mildred and Richard Loving|Richard Perry Loving]], [[Mildred and Richard Loving|Mildred (Jeter) Loving]] v. Virginia
| USVol = 388
| USPage = 1
| ParallelCitations = 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 1010; 1967 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 1082
| Docket = 
| OpinionAnnouncement = 
| Prior = Defendants convicted, Caroline County Circuit Court (January 6, 1959); [[Vacatur|motion to vacate]] judgment denied, Caroline County Circuit Court (January 22, 1959); affirmed in part, reversed and remanded, 147 [[South Eastern Reporter|S.E.2d]] 78 (Va. 1966); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, {{ussc|385|986|1966|el=no}}.
| Subsequent = 
| Holding = The prohibition of marriages between people based solely on racial classifications is unconstitutional.
| OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395/argument/
| OralReargument =
| Majority = Warren
| JoinMajority =''unanimous'' 
| Concurrence = Stewart
| JoinConcurrence = 
| Concurrence2 = 
| JoinConcurrence2 = 
| Concurrence/Dissent = 
| JoinConcurrence/Dissent = 
| Dissent = 
| JoinDissent = 
| Dissent2 = 
| JoinDissent2 = 
| LawsApplied = [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]]; Va. Code §§ 20–58, 20–59
| Overturned previous case = ''[[Pace v. Alabama]]'' (1883)
}}
'''''Loving v. Virginia''''', 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark]] [[Civil and political rights|civil rights]] decision of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] that ruled that the [[Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States|laws banning interracial marriage]] violate the [[Equal Protection Clause|Equal Protection]] and [[Due Process Clause|Due Process]] clauses of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]].<ref name=Loving>{{ussc|name=Loving v. Virginia|volume=388|page=1|pin=|year=1967}}</ref>{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§&nbsp;18.28(a), pp. 80–81}} Beginning in 2013, the decision was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions ruling that restrictions on [[same-sex marriage in the United States]] were unconstitutional, including in the Supreme Court decision ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' (2015).<ref name="Obergefell">{{ussc|name=Obergefell v. Hodges|volume=576|year=2015|docket=14-556}}</ref>

The case involved [[Mildred and Richard Loving|Richard Loving]], a [[White people|white]] man, and his wife [[Mildred and Richard Loving|Mildred Loving]], a woman [[Person of color|of color]].{{efn|Mildred Loving's precise racial background is not fully clear. Most sources describe her as black, but she denied being black and often said she was Native American. See the [[#Plaintiffs|Plaintiffs section]] for details.}} In 1959, the Lovings were convicted of violating [[Virginia]]'s [[Racial Integrity Act of 1924]], which criminalized marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "[[colored]]". [[Caroline County, Virginia|Caroline County]] [[Virginia Circuit Court|circuit court]] judge Leon M. Bazile sentenced them to prison but suspended the sentence on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return. The Lovings filed a motion to vacate their convictions on the ground that the Racial Integrity Act was unconstitutional, but Bazile denied it. After unsuccessfully appealing to the [[Supreme Court of Virginia]], the Lovings appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear their case.

In June 1967, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the Lovings' favor that overturned their convictions and struck down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. Virginia had argued before the Court that its law was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the punishment was the same regardless of the offender's race, and therefore it "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;9.3.1, p. 757}} The Court found that the law nonetheless violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based solely on "distinctions drawn according to race" and outlawed conduct—namely, that of getting married—that was otherwise generally accepted and that citizens were free to do.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;9.3.1, p. 757}} The Court's decision ended all [[Race (human categorization)|race]]-based legal restrictions on [[marriage in the United States]].

==Background==
===Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States===
[[Anti-miscegenation laws]] had been in place in certain states since the [[Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States|colonial period]]. During the [[Reconstruction era]] in 1865, the [[Black Codes (United States)|Black Codes]] across the seven states of the lower South made interracial marriage illegal. The new [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] legislatures in six states repealed the restrictive laws. By 1894, when the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] in the South returned to power, restrictions were reimposed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wallenstein |first1=Peter |author-link1=Peter Wallenstein |title=Reconstruction, Segregation, and Miscegenation: Interracial Marriage and the Law in the Lower South, 1865–1900 |journal=American Nineteenth Century History |volume=6 |date=16 August 2006 |pages=57–76 |doi=10.1080/14664650500121827 |s2cid=144811039 |quote=On the eve of Congressional Reconstruction, all seven states of the Lower South had laws against interracial marriage. During the Republican interlude that began in 1867–68, six of the seven states (all but Georgia) suspended those laws, whether through judicial invalidation or legislative repeal. Yet by 1894 all six had restored such bans.}}</ref>

A major concern was how to draw the line between black and white in a society in which white men had many children with enslaved black women. On the one hand, a person's reputation as black or white was usually what mattered in practice. On the other hand, most laws used a "[[One-drop rule|one drop of blood]]" rule, which meant that one black ancestor made a person black in the view of the law.<ref>[[Peter Wallenstein]], "Reconstruction, Segregation, and Miscegenation: Interracial Marriage and the Law in the Lower South, 1865–1900." ''American Nineteenth Century History'' 6#1 (2005): 57–76.</ref> In 1967, 16 states still retained anti-miscegenation laws, mainly in the [[Southern United States|American South]].<ref>''Loving'', 388 U.S. at 6.</ref>

=== Plaintiffs ===
{{Main|Mildred and Richard Loving}}
Mildred Delores Loving was the daughter of Musial (Byrd) Jeter and Theoliver Jeter.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.memorialobituaries.com/memorials/memorials_print.cgi?memid=191270 |title=Mildred Loving obituary |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161027192630/http://www.memorialobituaries.com/memorials/memorials_print.cgi?memid=191270 |archive-date=2016-10-27 |access-date=October 26, 2016}}</ref> She self-identified as [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|Indian]]-[[Rappahannock people|Rappahannock]],<ref name="Time">{{cite news|url=https://time.com/4362508/loving-v-virginia-personas/|title=What You Didn't Know About Loving v. Virginia|magazine=Time|access-date=2017-02-22|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215022952/http://time.com/4362508/loving-v-virginia-personas/|archive-date=2017-02-15}}</ref> but was also reported as being of [[Cherokee]], [[Portuguese people|Portuguese]], and [[African American|black American]] ancestry.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.charlielawing.com/modhist_lovingv.virginia.pdf|title=''Loving v. Virginia'' and the Hegemony of 'Race'|last=Lawing|first=Charles B.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070704053526/http://www.charlielawing.com/modhist_lovingv.virginia.pdf|archive-date=July 4, 2007|access-date=December 10, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-10-loving_N.htm|title=Pioneer of interracial marriage looks back|last=Walker|first=Dionne|date=June 10, 2007|newspaper=[[Associated Press]]|access-date=April 27, 2015}}</ref> During the trial, it seemed clear that she identified herself as Black, and her lawyer claimed that was how she described herself to him. However, upon her arrest, the police report identified her as "Indian" and by 2004, she denied having any Black ancestry.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-06-12 |title=50 Years Later, The Couple At The Heart of Loving v. Virginia Still Stirs Controversy |url=https://www.wgbh.org/news/2017-06-11/50-years-later-the-couple-at-the-heart-of-loving-v-virginia-still-stirs-controversy |access-date=2024-06-22 |website=GBH |language=en}}</ref>

Richard Perry Loving was a white man, the son of Lola (Allen) Loving and Twillie Loving. Their families both lived in [[Caroline County, Virginia]], which adhered to strict [[Jim Crow laws|Jim Crow segregation laws]], but their town of [[Central Point, Virginia|Central Point]] had been a visible mixed-race community since the 19th century.<ref name="Staples">{{Cite news|last=Staples|first=Brent|date=May 14, 2008|title=Loving v. Virginia and the Secret History of Race|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/opinion/14wed4.html|access-date=April 8, 2018|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

Mildred became pregnant, and in June 1958, the couple traveled to [[Washington, D.C.]] to marry, thereby evading Virginia's [[Racial Integrity Act of 1924]], which made marriage between whites and non-whites a crime.<ref>{{cite web|title=Racial Integrity Laws (1924–1930) |url=http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Racial_Integrity_Laws_of_the_1920s |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151115151130/http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/racial_integrity_laws_of_the_1920s|archive-date=November 15, 2015|access-date=November 4, 2015|website=Encyclopedia Virginia}}</ref> A few weeks after they returned to Central Point, local police raided their home in the early morning hours of July 11, 1958, hoping to find them having sex, as interracial sex was also illegal in Virginia.<ref>{{cite web |title=Mildred Loving – Civil Rights Activist – Biography.com |url=http://www.biography.com/people/mildred-loving-5884 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170211080301/http://www.biography.com/people/mildred-loving-5884 |archive-date=February 11, 2017 |access-date=February 20, 2017 |website=[[Biography.com]] |publisher=[[A&E Television Networks, LLC]]}}</ref> When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. They were told the certificate was not valid in Virginia.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theattic.space/home-page-blogs/2019/11/7/the-loving-couple |title=The Loving Couple |website=The Attic |date=November 16, 2019 |access-date=March 17, 2021}}</ref>

==Criminal proceedings==
The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified [[miscegenation]] as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.vaildaily.com/opinion/robbins-how-loving-vs-virginia-dealt-a-major-blow-to-segregation/ |work=Vail Daily |title=Robbins: How Loving vs Virginia dealt a major blow to segregation |date=April 28, 2020 |first=Rohn |last=Robbins |access-date=January 28, 2021}}</ref>

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth". They were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended on condition that the couple leave Virginia and not return together for at least 25 years. After their conviction, the couple moved to the [[District of Columbia]].<ref>''Loving'', 388 U.S. at 3 ("On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years&nbsp;... After their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia.")</ref>

===Appellate proceedings===
In 1963,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Williams |first1=Joe |title=The Arc Of Loving |url=https://richmondmagazine.com/downloads/14411/download/Features_Loving2_JAYPAUL_rp1116.jpg?cb=9b06ec4d920e48a5dd7d0e192400be9b&w=640&h= |website=Richmond Magazine |access-date=March 12, 2022}}</ref> frustrated by their inability to travel together to visit their families in Virginia, as well as their social isolation and financial difficulties in Washington, Mildred Loving wrote in protest to [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Robert F. Kennedy]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/mildred-loving-key-figure-in-civil-rights-era-dies |title=Mildred Loving, Key Figure in Civil Rights Era, Dies |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170613230048/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember-jan-june08-loving_05-06/ |archive-date=June 13, 2017 |url-status=live |work=PBS Online News Hour |date=May 6, 2008 |access-date=January 28, 2021}}</ref> Kennedy referred her to the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU).<ref name="NYT">{{cite news |first=Martin |last=Douglas |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html |title=Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161201080047/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html |archive-date=December 1, 2016 |work=The New York Times |date=May 6, 2008}}</ref> The ACLU assigned volunteer cooperating attorneys [[Bernard S. Cohen]] and [[Philip Hirschkop|Philip J. Hirschkop]], who filed a motion on behalf of the Lovings in Virginia's Caroline County Circuit Court, that requested the court to [[Vacated judgment|vacate]] the criminal judgments and set aside the Lovings' sentences on the grounds that the Virginia miscegenation statutes ran counter to the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]'s [[Equal Protection Clause]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://rediscovering-black-history.blogs.archives.gov/2014/02/25/virginia-is-for-the-lovings/ |title=Virginia is for the Lovings |date=February 25, 2014 |first=Christina Violeta |last=Jones |work=Rediscovering Black History |publisher=National Archives |access-date=January 28, 2021}}</ref>

On October 28, 1964, after waiting almost a year for a response to their motion, the ACLU attorneys filed a federal [[class action]] lawsuit in the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia]]. This prompted the county court judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile (1890–1967), to issue a ruling on the long-pending motion to vacate. Echoing [[Johann Friedrich Blumenbach]]'s 18th-century interpretation of race, Bazile denied the motion with the words:

{{quote|Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.<ref>{{cite web|title=Opinion of Judge Bazile in Commonwealth v. Loving (January 22, 1965)|url=http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Opinion_of_Judge_Leon_M_Bazile_January_22_1965|website=www.encyclopediavirginia.org|access-date=2016-11-27|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161128135102/http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Opinion_of_Judge_Leon_M_Bazile_January_22_1965|archive-date=November 28, 2016}}</ref>}}

On January 22, 1965, a three-judge district court panel postponed decision on the federal class-action case while the Lovings appealed Judge Bazile's decision on constitutional grounds to the [[Supreme Court of Virginia|Virginia Supreme Court]]. On March 7, 1966, Justice [[Harry L. Carrico]] (later Chief Justice of the Court) wrote an opinion for the court upholding the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes.<ref>{{cite web|title = Loving v. Commonwealth (March 7, 1966)|url = http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Commonwealth_March_7_1966|website = www.encyclopediavirginia.org|access-date = 2015-11-04|url-status = live|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150910095234/http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Commonwealth_March_7_1966|archive-date = September 10, 2015}}</ref> Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Naim v. Naim]]'' (1955) and ruled that criminalization of the Lovings' marriage was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for miscegenation, a line of reasoning that echoed that of the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in ''[[Pace v. Alabama]]''.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Loving v. Commonwealth |vol=206 |reporter=Va. |opinion=924 |date=1966 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/1966/6163-1.html |access-date=2018-07-26 }}</ref> However, the court did find the Lovings' sentences to be unconstitutionally vague, ordering that they be resentenced in the Caroline County Circuit Court.

The Lovings, still supported by the ACLU, appealed the state supreme court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, where Virginia was represented by [[Robert McIlwaine]] of the state's attorney general's office. The Supreme Court agreed on December 12, 1966, to accept the case for final review. The Lovings did not attend the oral arguments in Washington,<ref>{{cite web |first=Kate |last=Sheppard |url=https://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/02/the-loving-story-documentary-hbo |title='The Loving Story': How an Interracial Couple Changed a Nation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170220203224/https://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/02/the-loving-story-documentary-hbo |archive-date=February 20, 2017 |work=[[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]] |date=February 13, 2012}}</ref> but one of their lawyers, [[Bernard S. Cohen]], conveyed the personal message he had been given by Richard Loving: "Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia."<ref name="Oyez">{{cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395|title=Loving v. Virginia oral argument transcript|access-date=November 27, 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161115152456/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395|archive-date=November 15, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Virginia_1967 |title=Loving v. Virginia (1967) |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121214144034/http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Virginia_1967 |archive-date=December 14, 2012 |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopedia Virginia]]}}</ref>

==Precedents==
[[File:US miscegenation.svg|thumb|Date range when U.S. states repealed anti-miscegenation laws: {{legend|#d3d3d3|No laws ever passed}}
{{legend|#5b9e39|1780 to 1887}}
{{legend|#f3ee66|1948 to 1967}}
{{legend|#cc2f2f|Invalidated June 12, 1967, by ''Loving'' decision}}]]
Before ''Loving v. Virginia'', there had been several cases on the subject of interracial sexual relations. Within the state of Virginia, on October 3, 1878, in ''Kinney v. The Commonwealth'', the [[Supreme Court of Virginia]] ruled that the marriage legalized in [[Washington, D.C.]] between Andrew Kinney, a black man, and Mahala Miller, a white woman, was "invalid" in Virginia.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Brown|first1=DeNeen|title=Before Loving v. Virginia, another interracial couple fought in court for their marriage|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/06/11/before-loving-v-virginia-another-interracial-couple-fought-in-court-for-their-marriage/|access-date=11 June 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=11 June 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170611132258/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/06/11/before-loving-v-virginia-another-interracial-couple-fought-in-court-for-their-marriage/|archive-date=11 June 2017|df=mdy}}</ref> In the national case of ''[[Pace v. Alabama]]'' (1883), the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]].<ref name=Pace>{{ussc|name=Pace v. Alabama|volume=106|page=583|year=1883}}</ref> Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor.<ref name="history">{{cite web |date=June 15, 2017 |first=Matthew |last=Pinsker |title=The history behind Loving v. Virginia |url=https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-history-behind-loving-v.-virginia |work=Interactive Constitution |access-date= October 15, 2020}}</ref>

On appeal, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex. The court did not need to affirm the constitutionality of the ban on interracial marriage that was also part of Alabama's anti-miscegenation law, since the plaintiff, Mr. Pace, had chosen not to appeal that section of the law. After ''Pace v. Alabama'', the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws banning marriage and sex between whites and non-whites remained unchallenged until the 1920s.<ref name="history" />

In ''Kirby v. Kirby'' (1921), Joe R. Kirby asked the state of Arizona for an annulment of his marriage. He charged that his marriage was invalid because his wife was of "negro" descent, thus violating the state's anti-miscegenation law. The Arizona Supreme Court judged Mayellen Kirby's race by observing her physical characteristics and determined that she was of mixed race, therefore granting Joe R. Kirby's annulment.<ref name=Pascoe_pp49-51>{{harvnb|Pascoe|1996|pp=49–51}}</ref>

''Roldan v. Los Angeles County'' (1933), [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3292597/roldan-v-los-angeles-county/ 129 Cal. App. 267, 18 P.2d 706], was a 1930s court case in California confirming that the state's anti-miscegenation laws at the time did not bar the marriage of a Filipino and a white person.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Moran |first=Rachel F. |title=Interracial intimacy: the regulation of race & romance |date=2003 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-53663-7 |edition=Paperback |location=Chicago, Ill.}}</ref> However, the precedent lasted barely a week before the law was specifically amended to illegalize such marriages.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Baldoz |first=Rick |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/630468381 |title=The third Asiatic invasion: empire and migration in Filipino America, 1898-1946 |date=2011 |publisher=New York University Press |isbn=978-0-8147-9108-0 |series=Nation of newcomers: immigrant history as American history |location=New York |oclc=630468381}}</ref>

In the ''Monks'' case (''Estate of Monks'', 4. Civ. 2835, Records of California Court of Appeals, Fourth district), the Superior Court of San Diego County in 1939 decided to invalidate the marriage of Marie Antoinette and Allan Monks because she was deemed to have "one eighth negro blood". The court case involved a legal challenge over the conflicting wills that had been left by the late Allan Monks; an old one in favor of a friend named Ida Lee, and a newer one in favor of his wife. Lee's lawyers charged that the marriage of the Monkses, which had taken place in Arizona, was invalid under Arizona state law because Marie Antoinette was "a Negro" and Alan had been white. Despite conflicting testimony by various expert witnesses, the judge defined Marie Antoinette Monks' race by relying on the anatomical "expertise" of a surgeon. The judge ignored the arguments of an anthropologist and a biologist that it was impossible to tell a person's race from physical characteristics.<ref name=Pascoe_p56>{{harvnb|Pascoe |1996|p=56}}</ref>

Monks then challenged the Arizona anti-miscegenation law itself, taking her case to the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District. Monks' lawyers pointed out that the anti-miscegenation law effectively prohibited Monks as a mixed-race person from marrying anyone: "As such, she is prohibited from marrying a negro or any descendant of a negro, a Mongolian or an Indian, a Malay or a Hindu, or any descendants of any of them. Likewise&nbsp;... as a descendant of a negro she is prohibited from marrying a Caucasian or a descendant of a Caucasian." The Arizona anti-miscegenation statute thus prohibited Monks from contracting a valid marriage in Arizona and was therefore an unconstitutional constraint on her liberty. However, the court dismissed this argument as inapplicable, because the case presented involved not two mixed-race spouses but a mixed-race and a white spouse: "Under the facts presented the appellant does not have the benefit of assailing the validity of the statute."<ref name=Pascoe_p60>{{harvnb|Pascoe |1996|p=60}}</ref> Dismissing Monks' appeal in 1942, the United States Supreme Court refused to reopen the issue.<ref name=Pascoe_p60 />

The turning point came with ''[[Perez v. Sharp]]'' (1948), also known as ''Perez v. Lippold''. In ''Perez'', the [[Supreme Court of California]] ruled that California's ban on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2d/32/711.html |title=Perez v Sharp |website=Justia |access-date=March 17, 2021}}</ref>

==Supreme Court decision==
[[File:Earl_Warren.jpg|thumb|upright=1.0|right|Chief Justice Earl Warren, the author of the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in ''Loving v. Virginia'']]
On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision in favor of the Lovings. The Court's opinion was written by [[Chief Justice of the United States|chief justice]] [[Earl Warren]], and all the justices joined it.{{efn|The decision also includes a very short concurring opinion—only two sentences long—written by justice [[Potter Stewart]]. Stewart wrote that, in his opinion, no state criminal law could be valid "which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor" (as he wrote in his concurrence in ''[[McLaughlin v. Florida]]'', a similar case in 1964), a standard which reflects justice [[John Marshall Harlan]]'s dissent in 1896's ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]''.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Schoff | first=Rebecca | year=2009 | title=Note: Deciding on Doctrine: Anti-Miscegnation Statutes and the Development of Equal Protection Analysis | url=http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/deciding-doctrine-anti-miscegenation-statutes-and-development-equal-protection | journal=Virginia Law Review | volume=95 | issue=3 | pages=627–665 | access-date=September 11, 2019 | archive-date=December 2, 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191202131428/http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/deciding-doctrine-anti-miscegenation-statutes-and-development-equal-protection | url-status=dead }}</ref>}}

The Court first addressed whether Virginia's Racial Integrity Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Virginia state officials had argued that the Act did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites, reasoning that the punishment for violating the statute was the same regardless of the offender's race; for example, a white person who married a black person was subject to the same penalties as a black person who married a white person. The Court had accepted this "equal application" argument 84 years earlier in its 1883 decision ''[[Pace v. Alabama]]'', but it rejected the argument in ''Loving''.{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§&nbsp;18.8(d)(ii)(4)}}
{{Quote
|text={{nbsp|5}}[W]e reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations ....<br />
{{nbsp|5}}... We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State [Virginia], that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished.<br />
{{nbsp|5}}The State finds support for its "equal application" theory in the decision of the Court in ''Pace v. Alabama''. ... However, as recently as the 1964 Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated "''Pace'' represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court."
|source=''Loving'', 388 U.S. at 8, 10 (citations omitted).<ref name="Chemerinsky-2019">Quoted in part in {{harvp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;9.3.1, p. 757}}.</ref>
}}
The Court said that because Virginia's Racial Integrity Act used race as a basis to impose criminal culpability, the Equal Protection Clause required the Court to scrutinize strictly whether the Act was constitutional:
{{Quote
|text=There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated {{nowrap|"[d]istinctions}} between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny." 
|source=''Loving'', 388 U.S. at 11 (alteration in original) (citations omitted).
}}
Applying its [[strict scrutiny]] standard of review, the Court concluded that the Racial Integrity Act and its restrictions had no purpose other than "invidious racial discrimination" designed to "maintain White Supremacy". The Court therefore ruled that the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause:{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§ 18.28(a), pp. 80–81}}
{{Quote
|text=There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
|source=''Loving'', 388 U.S. at 11–12.<ref name="Chemerinsky-2019"/>
}}
The Court ended its opinion with a short section holding that Virginia's Racial Integrity Act also violated the Fourteenth Amendment's [[Due Process Clause]].{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.2.1, p. 863}} The Court said that the freedom to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, and it held that depriving Americans of it on an arbitrary basis such as race was unconstitutional:{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.2.1, p. 863}}
{{Quote
|text={{nbsp|5}}These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.<br />
{{nbsp|5}}Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
|source=''Loving'', 388 U.S. at 12 (citations omitted).<ref>Quoted in {{harvp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.2.1, p. 863}}.</ref>
}}
The Court ended by ordering that the Lovings' convictions be reversed.

==Effects==

===For interracial marriage===
{{See|Interracial marriage in the United States}}

Despite the Supreme Court's decision, anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states, although the decision had made them unenforceable. State judges in [[Alabama]] continued to enforce its anti-miscegenation statute until 1970, when the Nixon administration obtained a ruling from a U.S. District Court in ''United States v. Brittain''.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Brittain |vol=319 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=1058 |court=[[N.D. Ala.]] |date=1970 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/319/1058/2134867/ |access-date=2018-07-26 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Rosenthal|first1=Jack|author-link1=Jack Rosenthal (journalist)|title=Government Seeks to Allow A Mixed Marriage in Alabama|url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1970/12/04/355155472.pdf|access-date=January 25, 2015|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=December 4, 1970}}</ref> In 2000, Alabama became the last state to adapt its laws to the Supreme Court's decision, when 60% of voters endorsed a constitutional amendment, [[2000 Alabama Amendment 2|Amendment 2]], that removed anti-miscegenation language from the state constitution.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/12/weekinreview/november-5-11-marry-at-will.html |title=November 5–11; Marry at Will |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=November 12, 2000 |access-date=May 27, 2009 |quote=The margin by which the measure passed was itself a statement. A clear majority, 60 percent, voted to remove the miscegenation statute from the state constitution, but 40 percent of Alabamans – nearly 526,000 people – voted to keep it. |first=Somini |last=Sengupta |author-link=Somini Sengupta |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090821110359/http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/12/weekinreview/november-5-11-marry-at-will.html |archive-date=August 21, 2009 }}</ref>

After ''Loving v. Virginia'', the number of interracial marriages continued to increase across the United States<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18090277 |title=Interracial marriage flourishes in U.S. |publisher=NBC News |date=April 15, 2007 |access-date=December 13, 2012 }}</ref> and in the South. In Georgia, for instance, the number of interracial marriages increased from 21 in 1967 to 115 in 1970.<ref>[[Delores P. Aldridge|Aldridge]], ''The Changing Nature of Interracial Marriage in Georgia: A Research Note'', 1973</ref> At the national level, 0.4% of marriages were interracial in 1960, 2.0% in 1980,<ref name="UnitedStatesCensusData">{{cite web| url =https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/interractab1.txt| title =Table 1. Race of Wife by Race of Husband: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1991, and 1992| date =1994-07-05| website =[[census.gov]]| publisher =[[U.S. Bureau of the Census]]| access-date =2017-02-20| url-status =live| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20170304155503/https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/interractab1.txt| archive-date =2017-03-04}}</ref> 12% in 2013,<ref>{{cite web|title=Interracial marriage: Who is 'marrying out'?|url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/12/interracial-marriage-who-is-marrying-out/|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|access-date=11 August 2016|date=12 June 2015|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160812004242/http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/12/interracial-marriage-who-is-marrying-out/|archive-date=12 August 2016}}</ref> and 16% in 2015, almost 50 years after ''Loving''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Intermarriage across the U.S. by metro area|url=http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/interactives/intermarriage-across-the-u-s-by-metro-area/|website=Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project|access-date=11 June 2017|date=18 May 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170606132122/http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/interactives/intermarriage-across-the-u-s-by-metro-area/|archive-date=6 June 2017}}</ref>

===For same-sex marriage===
''Loving v. Virginia'' was discussed in the context of the public debate about [[same-sex marriage in the United States]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Trei |first=Lisa |url=http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2007/pr-rosenfeld-061307.html |title=''Loving v. Virginia'' provides roadmap for same-sex marriage advocates |publisher=News.stanford.edu |date=June 13, 2007 |access-date=December 13, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121213011039/http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2007/pr-rosenfeld-061307.html |archive-date=December 13, 2012 }}</ref>

In ''[[Hernández v. Robles|Hernandez v. Robles]]'' (2006), the majority opinion of the [[New York Court of Appeals]]—that state's highest court—declined to rely on the ''Loving'' case when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that "the historical background of ''Loving'' is different from the history underlying this case."<ref name="hernandezvrobles">{{cite court |litigants=Hernandez v. Robles |vol=855 |reporter=N.E.3d |opinion=1 |court=N.Y. |date=2006 |url=http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05239.htm |access-date=2018-07-26 }}</ref> In the 2010 federal district court decision in ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'', overturning [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|California's Proposition 8]] which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples, Judge [[Vaughn R. Walker]] cited ''Loving v. Virginia'' to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Perry v. Schwarzenegger |vol=704 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=921 |court=[[N.D. Cal.]] |date=2010 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20101015624 |access-date=2018-07-26 }}</ref> On narrower grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html |first1=Adam |last1=Nagourney |author-link1=Adam Nagourney |date=February 7, 2012 |title=Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=February 8, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120211122706/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html |archive-date=February 11, 2012 }}</ref><ref name="9th">{{cite court |litigants=Perry v. Brown |vol=671 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1052 |court=[[9th Cir.]] |date=2012 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120207000t |access-date=2018-07-26 }}</ref>

In June 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in ''Loving'', Mildred Loving issued a statement in support of same-sex marriage.<ref>{{cite web |date=June 15, 2007 |title=Mildred Loving Endorses Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples |url=https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/mildred-loving-endorses-marriage-equality-for-same-sex-couples/ |access-date=July 24, 2018 |publisher=[[American Constitution Society]] |archive-date=April 27, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190427010803/https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/mildred-loving-endorses-marriage-equality-for-same-sex-couples/ |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Douglas Martin |date=June 18, 2007 |title=Mildred Loving, 40 Years Later |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/06/mildred-loving-40-years-later/227582/ |access-date=March 11, 2015 |publisher=[[The Atlantic]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Douglas Martin |date=May 6, 2008 |title=Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html |access-date=July 14, 2018 |newspaper=[[New York Times]]}}</ref>

Up until 2014, five [[United States court of appeals|U.S. Courts of Appeals]] considered the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. In doing so they interpreted or used the ''Loving'' ruling differently:

*The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|Fourth]] and [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|Tenth]] Circuits used ''Loving'' along with other cases like ''[[Zablocki v. Redhail]]''<ref>{{ussc|name=Zablocki v. Redhail|volume=434|page=374|pin=|year=1978}}</ref> and ''[[Turner v. Safley]]''<ref>{{ussc|name=Turner v. Safley|volume=482|page=78|pin=|year=1987}}</ref> to demonstrate that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a "fundamental right to marry" that a state cannot restrict unless it meets the court's "[[heightened scrutiny]]" standard. Using that standard, both courts struck down state bans on same-sex marriage.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Bostic v. Shaefer |vol=760 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=352 |pinpoint=376 |court=[[4th Cir.]] |date=2014 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140728145 |access-date=2018-07-26 |quote=In ''Loving v. Virginia'', the Supreme Court invalidated a Virginia law that prohibited white individuals from marrying individuals of other races. The Court explained that '[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men' and that no valid basis justified the Virginia law's infringement of that right. [citations omitted]}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kitchen v. Herbert |vol=755 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1193 |court=[[10th Cir.]] |date=2014 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140625074 |access-date=2018-07-26 }}</ref>
*Two other courts of appeals, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|Seventh]] and [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth]] Circuits, struck down state bans on the basis of a different line of argument. Instead of "fundamental rights" analysis, they reviewed bans on same-sex marriage as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The former cited ''Loving'' to demonstrate that the Supreme Court did not accept tradition as a justification for limiting access to marriage.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Baskin v. Bogan |vol=766 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=648 |court=[[7th Cir.]] |date=2014 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140904126 |access-date=2018-07-26 }}</ref> The latter cited ''Loving'' as quoted in ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' on the question of federalism: "state laws defining or regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons".<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Latta v. Otter |vol=771 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=456 |pinpoint=474 |date=2014 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20141007102 |access-date=2018-07-26 }}</ref>
*The only Court of Appeals to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit]], said that when the ''Loving'' decision discussed marriage it was referring only to marriage between persons of the opposite sex.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=DeBoer v. Snyder |vol=772 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=388 |pinpoint=411 |court=[[6th Cir.]] |date=2014 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20141106144 |access-date=2018-07-26 |quote=Matters do not change because ''Loving v. Virginia'' held that 'marriage' amounts to a fundamental right.&nbsp;... In referring to 'marriage' rather than "opposite-sex marriage", ''Loving'' confirmed only that 'opposite-sex marriage' would have been considered redundant, not that marriage included same-sex couples. ''Loving'' did not change the definition. [citations omitted]}}</ref>

In ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' (2015), the Supreme Court invoked ''Loving'', among other cases, as precedent for its holding that states are required to allow same-sex marriages under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.<ref name=Obergefell/> The court's decision in ''Obergefell'' cited ''Loving'' nearly a dozen times, and was based on the same principles – equality and an [[unenumerated right]] to marriage. During oral argument, the eventual author of the majority opinion, Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]], noted that the ruling holding racial segregation unconstitutional and the ruling holding bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional (''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'' in 1954 and ''Loving v. Virginia'' in 1967, respectively) were made about 13 years apart, much like the ruling holding bans on same-sex sexual activity unconstitutional and the eventual ruling holding bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional (''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' in 2003 and ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' in 2015, respectively).<ref>{{cite news|last=Amar|first=Akhil Reed|author-link=Akhil Reed Amar|title=Anthony Kennedy and the Ghost of Earl Warren|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/06/obergefell_v_hodges_anthony_kennedy_continues_the_legacy_of_earl_warren.html|access-date=6 July 2015|work=Slate|date=6 July 2015|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150707032841/http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/06/obergefell_v_hodges_anthony_kennedy_continues_the_legacy_of_earl_warren.html|archive-date=7 July 2015}}</ref>

==Codification==
In 2022, Congress [[Codification (law)|codified]] portions of the Supreme Court's decisions in ''Loving'' and ''Obergefell'' in federal law by passing the [[Respect for Marriage Act]]. This act requires the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and [[Territories of the United States|territories]] (though not [[List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States|tribes]]) to recognize the validity of [[Same-sex marriage in the United States|same-sex]] and [[Interracial marriage in the United States|interracial]] civil marriages in the United States.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/respect-marriage-act-same-sex-interracial-couples/story?id=95181737 |title=What the Respect for Marriage Act does and doesn't do |last=Dwyer |first=Devin |author-link=Devin Dwyer |date=2022-12-13 |publisher=ABC News |access-date=2024-07-11}}</ref>

==In popular culture==
[[File:Graves of Mildred and Richard Loving.jpg|thumb|Graves of the Lovings in the St. Stephen's Baptist Church cemetery, [[Central Point, Virginia]]]]

In the United States, June 12, the date of the decision, has become known as [[Loving Day]], an annual unofficial celebration of interracial marriages. In 2014, Mildred Loving was honored as one of the [[Library of Virginia]]'s "[[Virginia Women in History]]".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/vawomen/2014/honoree.htm?bio=Loving|title=Virginia Women in History: Mildred Delores Jeter Loving|publisher=Library of Virginia|access-date=4 March 2015|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150321185328/http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/vawomen/2014/honoree.htm?bio=Loving|archive-date=21 March 2015}}</ref> In 2017, the [[Virginia Department of Historic Resources]] dedicated a state [[historical marker]], which tells the story of the Lovings, outside the [[Patrick Henry Building]] in Richmond – the former site of the [[Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Virginia to honor interracial marriage with state historical marker|first=Scott|last=Wise|url=http://wtvr.com/2017/06/08/interracial-marriage-historical-marker/|access-date=11 June 2017|work=WTVR.com|date=8 June 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170608185356/http://wtvr.com/2017/06/08/interracial-marriage-historical-marker/|archive-date=8 June 2017}}</ref>

The story of the Lovings became the basis of several films:
* The first, ''[[Mr. and Mrs. Loving]]'' (1996), was written and directed by [[Richard Friedenberg]] and starred [[Lela Rochon]], [[Timothy Hutton]], and [[Ruby Dee]].<ref>*{{IMDb title|qid=Q30512901|title=Mr. & Mrs. Loving}}</ref> According to Mildred Loving, "not much of it was very true. The only part of it right was I had three children."<ref>{{cite news|first=Dionne |last=Walker|publisher=USAToday.com|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-10-loving_N.htm|title=Pioneer of interracial marriage looks back|date=June 10, 2007|access-date=May 8, 2008|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509035254/http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-10-loving_N.htm|archive-date=May 9, 2008}}</ref><ref name="iht">{{cite news | title=40 years of interracial marriage: Mildred Loving reflects on breaking the color barrier | agency=Associated Press | work=[[International Herald-Tribune]] | date=June 9, 2007 | access-date=April 28, 2008 | url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/10/america/NA-FEA-GEN-US-Loving-Anniversary.php | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080508202344/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/10/america/NA-FEA-GEN-US-Loving-Anniversary.php | archive-date=May 8, 2008 }}</ref> 
* [[Nancy Buirski]]'s documentary ''The Loving Story,'' premiered on [[HBO]] in February 2012<ref name="lovings-hbo">{{cite news|url=http://tv.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/arts/television/the-loving-story-an-hbo-documentary.html|title=Scenes From a Marriage That Segregationists Tried to Break Up|first=Alessandra|last=Stanley|author-link=Alessandra Stanley|date=February 13, 2012|work=[[The New York Times]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120214075848/http://tv.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/arts/television/the-loving-story-an-hbo-documentary.html|archive-date=February 14, 2012}}</ref><ref>[http://icarusfilms.com/new2012/ls.html The Loving Story] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120612142413/http://icarusfilms.com/new2012/ls.html |date=2012-06-12 }}, accessed March 25, 2015</ref> and won a [[Peabody Award]] that year.<ref>[http://www.peabodyawards.com/award-profile/the-loving-story 72nd Annual Peabody Awards] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140911220051/http://www.peabodyawards.com/award-profile/the-loving-story |date=2014-09-11 }}, May 2013.</ref>
* ''[[Loving (2016 film)|Loving]]'', a dramatized telling of the story based on Buirski's documentary, was released in 2016. It was directed by [[Jeff Nichols]] and starred [[Ruth Negga]] and [[Joel Edgerton]] as the Lovings. Negga received an [[Academy Award]] nomination for her performance.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/01/24/get-to-know-ruth-negga-loving-oscar-nominated-breakout-star/96984838/ |last=McDermott |first=Maeve |title=Get to Know Ruth Negga, the Oscar-Nominated Breakout Star of "Loving" |date=January 24, 2017 |website=USA Today |access-date=March 17, 2021}}</ref>
* A four-part film, ''The Loving Generation'', premiered on [[First Look Media|Topic.com]] in February 2018. Directed and produced by [[Lacey Schwartz Delgado]] and Mehret Mandefro, it explores the lives of biracial children born after the ''Loving'' decision.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.topic.com/the-loving-generation |title=The Loving Generation |work=Topic |publisher=[[First Look Media|Topic.com]] |access-date=February 18, 2018 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180217162449/https://www.topic.com/the-loving-generation |archive-date=February 17, 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theroot.com/the-loving-generation-explores-the-lives-of-biracial-ch-1822767412|title=The Loving Generation Explores the Lives of Biracial Children Born After Mixed-Race Marriages Were Legalized|last=Branigin|first=Anne|date=February 10, 2018|work=[[The Root (magazine)|The Root]]|access-date=February 15, 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180216030806/https://www.theroot.com/the-loving-generation-explores-the-lives-of-biracial-ch-1822767412|archive-date=February 16, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/opinion/sunday/black-with-some-white-privilege.html|title=Black With (Some) White Privilege|last=Holmes|first=Anna|author-link=Anna Holmes|date=February 10, 2018|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=February 15, 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180214184644/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/opinion/sunday/black-with-some-white-privilege.html|archive-date=February 14, 2018}}</ref>

In music, [[Nanci Griffith]]'s 2009 album ''[[The Loving Kind (Nanci Griffith album)|The Loving Kind]]'' is named for the Lovings and includes a song about them. Satirist [[Roy Zimmerman (satirist)|Roy Zimmerman]]'s 2009 song "The Summer of Loving" is about the Lovings and their 1967 case.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Altman |first1=Ross |title=Roy Zimmerman: Rezist |url=https://folkworks.org/reviews/folkworks-concert-reviews/46559-roy-zimmerman-rezist-july-2017 |website=FolkWorks |access-date=18 June 2020 |date=12 July 2017}}</ref> The title is a reference to the [[Summer of Love]]. The opera ''Loving v Virginia'' by Damien Geter and Jessica Murphy Moo premiered in the spring of 2025 with Virginia Opera and The Richmond Symphony.<ref>{{cite web |last=Essa |first=Antoinette |title=Library of Virginia celebrates Black History Month with Virginia Opera collaboration |website=[[WTVR-TV]] |url=https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/library-of-virginia-celebrates-black-history-month-collaboration-virginia-opera-feb-14-2025 |date=February 14, 2025 |access-date=April 15, 2025}}</ref>

A 2015 novel by the French journalist Gilles Biassette, ''L'amour des Loving'' ("The Love of the Lovings", {{ISBN|978-2917559598}}), recounts the life of the Lovings and their case.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Mahuzier|first1=Marc|title=L'amour en noir et blanc|url=http://www.ouest-france.fr/lamour-en-noir-et-blanc-3498156|access-date=22 June 2015|work=[[Ouest-France]]|date=21 June 2015|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924160041/http://www.ouest-france.fr/lamour-en-noir-et-blanc-3498156|archive-date=24 September 2015}}</ref> A [[photo-essay]] about the couple by [[Grey Villet]], created just before the case, was republished in 2017.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Villet|first1=Barbara|last2=Villet|first2=Grey|title=The Lovings: An Intimate Portrait|date=February 14, 2017|publisher=Princeton Architectural Press|isbn=978-1616895563}}</ref>

==References==
===Footnotes===
{{notelist}}

===Citations===
{{Reflist}}

===Bibliography===
* {{cite book | first=Erwin | last=Chemerinsky | author-link=Erwin Chemerinsky | title=Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies | edition= 6th | location=New York | publisher=Wolters Kluwer | year=2019 | isbn=978-1-4548-9574-9 }}
* {{cite book | first1=John E. | last1=Nowak | first2=Ronald D. | last2=Rotunda | title=Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure | year=2012 | location=Eagan, Minnesota | publisher=West Thomson/Reuters| edition= 5th | oclc = 798148265 }}

===Further reading===
{{refbegin|30em}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Aldridge |first=Delores |author-link=Delores P. Aldridge |title=The Changing Nature of Interracial Marriage in Georgia: A Research Note |journal=Journal of Marriage and the Family |volume=35 |issue=4 |year=1973 |pages=641–642 |doi=10.2307/350877 |jstor=350877 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Annella |first=M. |title=Interracial Marriages in Washington, D.C. |journal=Journal of Negro Education |volume=36 |issue=4 |year=1967 |pages=428–433 |doi=10.2307/2294264 |jstor=2294264 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Barnett |first=Larry |title=Research on International and Interracial Marriages |journal=Marriage and Family Living |volume=25 |issue=1 |year=1963 |pages=105–107 |doi=10.2307/349019 |jstor=349019 }}
*{{Cite journal |last1=Brower |first1=Brock |author-link1=Brock Brower |title='Irrepressible Intimacies'. Review of ''Interracial Intimacies: Sex, Marriage, Identity, and Adoption'', by Randall L. Kennedy |journal=Journal of Blacks in Higher Education |volume=40 |issue=40 |year=2003 |pages=120–124 |doi=10.2307/3134064 |jstor=3134064 |last2=Kennedy |first2=Randall L. |author-link2=Randall L. Kennedy}}
*Christopher Leslie (2004) ''[http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3406&context=bclr Justice Alito's Dissent in Loving v. Virginia]'', University of California, p.&nbsp;1564.
*{{Cite journal |last=Coolidge |first=David Orgon |author-link=David Orgon Coolidge |title=Playing the Loving Card: Same-Sex Marriage and the Politics of Analogy |journal=BYU Journal of Public Law |volume=12 |year=1998 |pages=201–238 |url=http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl/vol12/iss2/2 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=DeCoste |first=F. C. |title=The ''Halpren'' Transformation: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Society, and the Limits of Liberal Law |journal=Alberta Law Review |volume=41 |year=2003 |issue= 2|pages=619–642 |doi=10.29173/alr1338 |doi-access=free }}
*Dorothy Robert (2014) ''[http://www.nylslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2015/02/Volume-59-1.Roberts.pdf Loving v. Virginia as a civil rights decision] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170406201032/http://www.nylslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2015/02/Volume-59-1.Roberts.pdf |date=April 6, 2017 }}'', p.&nbsp;177.
*{{Cite journal |last1=Foeman |first1=Anita Kathy |name-list-style=amp |first2=Teresa |last2=Nance |title=From Miscegenation to Multiculturalism: Perceptions and Stages of Interracial Relationship Development |journal=Journal of Black Studies |volume=29 |issue=4 |year=1999 |pages=540–557 |doi=10.1177/002193479902900405|s2cid=143739003 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Hopkins |first=C. Quince |title=Variety in U.S Kinship Practices, Substantive Due Process Analysis and the Right to Marry |journal=BYU Journal of Public Law |volume=18 |year=2004 |pages=665–679 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Kalmijn |first=Matthijs |title=Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends |journal=Annual Review of Sociology |volume=24 |issue= 24|year=1998 |pages=395–421 |doi=10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.395|pmid=12321971 |hdl=1874/13605 |s2cid=11955842 |hdl-access=free }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Koppelman |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Koppelman |title=The Miscegenation Analogy: Sodomy Law as Sex Discrimination |journal=[[Yale Law Journal]] |volume=98 |issue=1 |year=1988 |pages=145–164 |doi=10.2307/796648 |jstor=796648 |url=https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol98/iss1/3 }}
*{{Cite book |last=Newbeck |first=Phyl |title=Virginia hasn't always been for lovers |date= 2004 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Pascoe |first=Peggy |author-link=Peggy Pascoe |title=Miscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of 'Race' in Twentieth-Century America |journal=Journal of American History |volume=83 |issue=1 |year=1996 |pages=44–69 |doi=10.2307/2945474|jstor=2945474 }}
*{{cite journal |last1=Pratt |first1=Robert A. |title=Crossing the color line: A historical assessment and personal narrative of Loving v. Virginia |journal=Howard Law Journal |volume=41 |year=1997 |page=229 }}
*{{Cite book |last=Villet |first=Grey |title=The Lovings: An Intimate Portrait |date= 2017}}
*{{Cite book |last=Wadlington |first=Walter |title=Domestic Relations |date=November 1967 }}
*{{cite book |last1=Wallenstein |first1=Peter |author-link1=Peter Wallenstein |title=Race, Sex, and the Freedom to Marry: Loving v. Virginia |year=2014 |publisher=University Press of Kansas |isbn=978-0-7006-2000-5 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Wildman |first=Stephanie |title=Interracial Intimacy and the Potential for Social Change: Review of ''Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race and Romance'' by Rachel F. Moran |journal=Berkeley Women's Law Journal |volume=17 |year=2002 |pages=153–164 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.309743 |url=http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1633&context=facpubs |url-access=subscription |doi-access=free }}
*{{Cite journal |last1=Yancey |first1=George |author-link1=George Yancey |name-list-style=amp |first2=Sherelyn |last2=Yancey |title=Interracial Dating: Evidence from Personal Advertisements |journal=Journal of Family Issues |volume=19 |issue=3 |year=1998 |pages=334–348 |doi=10.1177/019251398019003006 |s2cid=145209341 }}
{{refend}}

==External links==

=== Links with the text of the court's decision ===
*{{wikisource-inline|Loving v. Virginia|''Loving v. Virginia''}}
*{{caselaw source
 | case=''Loving v. Virginia'', {{ussc|388|1|1967|el=no}}
 | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1
 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107480/loving-v-virginia/
 | findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/388/1.html
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597
 | justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep388/usrep388001/usrep388001.pdf
 | openjurist =https://openjurist.org/388/us/1
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395
}}
{{reflist|group=X}}

=== Other external links ===
*[http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3277875&page=1n A Groundbreaking Interracial Marriage; ''Loving v. Virginia'' at 40.] ''[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]]'' interview with Mildred Jeter Loving & video of original 1967 broadcast. June 14, 2007.
*[https://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/214/ Resources] at [[Oyez.org]] including complete audio of the oral arguments.
*[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10889047 ''Loving'' Decision: 40 Years of Legal Interracial Unions], [[National Public Radio]]: ''[[All Things Considered]]'', June 11, 2007.
*[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20070612.html The Fortieth Anniversary of ''Loving v. Virginia'': The Legal Legacy of the Case that Ended Legal Prohibitions on Interracial Marriage], [[Findlaw]] commentary by Joanna Grossman.
*Chin, Gabriel and Hrishi Karthikeyan, (2002) ''Asian Law Journal'', vol. 9 [https://ssrn.com/abstract=283998 "Preserving Racial Identity: Population Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to Asian Americans, 1910–1950"]

{{Civil rights movement|state=collapsed}}
{{US14thAmendment|equalprotection}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Loving v. Virginia}}
[[Category:1967 in United States case law]]
[[Category:1967 in Virginia]]
[[Category:African-American history of Virginia]]
[[Category:American Civil Liberties Union litigation]]
[[Category:Caroline County, Virginia]]
[[Category:Civil rights movement case law]]
[[Category:Interracial marriage in the United States]]
[[Category:June 1967 in the United States]]
[[Category:Legal history of Virginia]]
[[Category:Mildred and Richard Loving]]
[[Category:Native American history of Virginia]]
[[Category:Race-related case law in the United States]]
[[Category:Rappahannock]]
[[Category:United States equal protection case law]]
[[Category:United States marriage case law]]
[[Category:United States racial discrimination case law]]
[[Category:United States substantive due process case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision]]