miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional by the us supreme court in 1986.
miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional by the us supreme court in 1986.
when were miscegenation laws ruled unconstitutional by the us supreme court?
1986
while there have been no nationwide anti-miscegenation laws in the united states, there were state laws in individual states, particularly in the southern states and the plains states, that prohibited miscegenation. these laws were a part of american law since before the united states was established and remained so until ruled unconstitutional in 1967 by the u.s. supreme court in "loving v. virginia". all anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also native americans and asian americans. the first anti-miscegenation law that applied to both men and women was enacted in the colony of virginia in 1691 and was punishable by exile, it prohibited “english or other white man or woman being free” to intermarry with “a negroe, mulatto, or indian man or woman bond or free”. sometimes, the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead. in addition, the state of oklahoma in 1908 banned marriage "between a person of african descent" and "any person not of african descent"; louisiana in 1920 banned marriage between native americans and african americans (and from 1920 to 1942, concubinage as well); and maryland in 1935 banned marriages between blacks and filipinos. in many states, anti-miscegenation laws also criminalized cohabitation and sex between whites and non-whites.
anti-miscegenation laws
originalists such as r. carter pittman, alfred avins, and raoul berger (in his book "government by judiciary") argued that the authors of the 14th amendment did not intend to nullify anti-miscegenation laws. some judges and several u.s. supreme court justices in the 1992 "planned parenthood v. casey" case have used "loving" as an argument against originalism. meanwhile, david upham argues that the original understanding of the 14th amendment among many people in 1868 and the years right after 1868 was that it indeed nullified anti-miscegenation laws (albeit through the privileges or immunities clause rather than through the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment) and that the 14th amendment was wrongly interpreted in regards to this for almost a century before "loving". upham argues that before the u.s. supreme court made its ruling in the slaughterhouse cases in 1873, virtually every republican official and judge who was confronted with this issue concluded that the 14th amendment nullified anti-miscegenation laws, and that it was the "slaughter-house cases" that gutted the 14th amendment's privileges or immunities clause and thus made it much harder to argue that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. upham also argues that, in 1873, anti-miscegenation laws were not in force throughout most of the united states either due to their repeal, due to their lack of enforcement (due to a belief by some us state officials that these laws have been nullified by the 14th amendment), or due to these laws being judicially nullified (such as by the 1872 alabama supreme court ruling in the case "burns v. state"). however, upham does acknowledge that these views were not unanimous even among republicans and that republican us senators lyman trumbull and waitman willey (in 1866), the republican justices on the ohio supreme court (in 1872), and some republican legislators in both ohio and oregon (in 1868) implied that the 14th amendment was not going to affect the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws. none of those mentioneed ever had to directly rule on this issue, such as the justices on the alabama supreme court had to in 1872.
loving v. virginia