Appeal to the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia
5/27/1966
Add to Favorites:
Add all page(s) of this document to activity:
Add only page 1 to activity:
Add only page 2 to activity:
Add only page 3 to activity:
Add only page 4 to activity:
In June 1958, Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, quietly married in Washington, DC. They returned home to Virginia and woke up one morning with policemen in their bedroom. The Lovings were arrested for violating the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.
Richard and Mildred were found guilty and sentenced to one year in jail, or they could accept a plea bargain and leave Virginia. So they left. But by 1963, tired of visiting family and friends separately, they sought legal help. Attorneys Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkopf took their case to the Virginia Court of Appeals, where Judge Leon Bazile upheld the lower court’s ruling.
In his ruling convicting Richard and Mildred Loving, Judge Bazile wrote:
Richard and Mildred were found guilty and sentenced to one year in jail, or they could accept a plea bargain and leave Virginia. So they left. But by 1963, tired of visiting family and friends separately, they sought legal help. Attorneys Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkopf took their case to the Virginia Court of Appeals, where Judge Leon Bazile upheld the lower court’s ruling.
In his ruling convicting Richard and Mildred Loving, Judge Bazile wrote:
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….the fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.The case was sent to the United States Supreme Court, as shown in this appeal. The Supreme Court justices voted unanimously in favor of the Lovings. They ruled Virginia’s law violated the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. The Lovings returned to Virginia following the ruling.
Transcript
In theSupreme Court of Appeals
of the
Commonwealth of Virginia
Richard Perry Loving and
Mildred Jeter Loving,
Appellants
v.
Commonwealth of Virginia,
Appellee
Record No. 6163
Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States [handwritten] Filed May 31, 1966
1. Notice is hereby given that RICHARD PERRY LOVING and MILDRED JETER LOVING, the appellants above named, hereby appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from the final Order of this, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, entered herein on March 7, 1966, affirming the decision of the Circuit Court of Caroline County entered on January 22, 1965, which decision denied the appellants' motion to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence, and further, affirming the judgement of conviction originally entered by the Circuit Court of Caroline County on January 6, 1959.
This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (2).
Appellants, Richard Perry Loving, a White person, and Mildred Jeter Loving, a Negro person, were convicted for "unlawfully and feloniously go[ing] out of the State of Virginia, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of ret
urning to the State of Virginia...[and] cohabiting as man and wife against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth".
§ § 20-58, 20-59 of the 1950 Code of Virginia as amended.
[margin] Law offfices Lainof, Cohen & Cohen
1513 King St
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
[page number] 37
They were each sentenced to one year in jail, which sentences were suspended "for a period of twenty-five years upon the provision that both accused leave Caroline County and the State of Virginia at once and do not return together or at the same time to said County and State for a period of twenty-five years". The convictions were affirmed, but the sentences were reversed by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals as part of the judgment appealed from herein. Your appellants are presently free because the execution of the judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has been stayed by that Court until the final determination of their convictions by the United States Supreme Court.
II. The clerk will please prepare a transcript of the record in this cause for transmission to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, and include in said transcript the following:
[handwritten} start
1. Both of the Warrants of Arrest for Criminal Dockets No. 928 and 929.
2. The True bill returned by the grand jurors of the Commonwealth of Virginia at the October 1958 term.
3. The Order which carries the heading "Indictment for a Felony" which is signed by Leon M. Bazile, Judge, and dated the 6th of January, 1959 and which is entered in Common Law Order Book 14, page 161.
4. The motion to vacate judgment and set aside sentence filed on the 6th of November, 1963.
5. The ten page updated written opinion signed by Leon M. Bazile, Judge.
[margin] Law offfices Lainof, Cohen & Cohen
1513 King St
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
[page number] 38
6. The Order entered on 22 January 1965, signed by Judge Leon M. Bazile.
7. The Notice of Appeal and Assignments of Error filed on March 3, 1965.
8. The Writ of Error and Supersedeas granted in this matter on June 11, 1965, together with the clerk's certificate thereof on June 14, 1965.
9. The Opinion by Justice Harry L. Carrico rendered in this matter on March 7, 1966.
10. Appellants' Motion for Stay of March 24, 1966.
11. The Order Staying Execution of Judgment of March 28, 1966.
12. This Notice of Appeal.
III. The following questions are presented by this appeal:
1. Do the Virginia anti-miscegenation laws (§ 20-50 et seq. of the 1950 Code of Virginia as amended) violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution?
2. Does a state statute which proscribes marriage between members of different races violate constitutional rights of privacy?
3. Does a state statute which proscribes marriage between members of different races violate a constitutional right of freedom to marry?
4. Is a state law valid under our Constitution which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his marriage constitutes a criminal offense?
[margin] Law offfices Lainof, Cohen & Cohen
1513 King St
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
[page number] 39
5. Do the Virginia anti-miscegenation statutes deprive the appellants of the civil rights guaranteed by § 1981 of Title 42 of the U.S. code?
RICHARD PERRY LOVING and
MILDRED JETER LOVING
By Counsel
BERNARD S. COHEN
PHILIP J. HIRSCHKOP
LAINOF, COHEN & COHEN, ESQS.
Attorneys for Appellants
1513 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia
By: Bernard S. Cohen [signed]
Of counsel:
Melvin Wulf, Esq.
American Civil Liberties Union
156 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York
Proof of Service
I, Bernard S. Cohen, one of the attorneys for Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving, appellants herein, and a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, hereby certify that on the 27th [handwritten] day of May, 1966, I served a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, on the Commonwealth of Virginia, by mailing copies in duly addressed envelopes, with first-class postage prepaid, to Robert Y. Button, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia and to R. D. McIlwaine, III, Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
[signed] Bernard S. Cohen
Attorney for Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving
1513 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia
[margin] Law offfices Lainof, Cohen & Cohen
1513 King St
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
[page number] 40
This primary source comes from the Records of the Supreme Court of the United States.
National Archives Identifier: 7873520
Full Citation: Copy of Appeal from Loving v. Virginia; 5/27/1966; 395 OT 1966; Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files, 1792 - 2014; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, Record Group 267; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. [Online Version, https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/appeal-loving-v-virginia, April 21, 2025]Rights: Public Domain, Free of Known Copyright Restrictions. Learn more on our privacy and legal page.