Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Lovings and ACLU appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Lovings did not attend the oral arguments in Washington, but their lawyer, Bernard S. Cohen, conveyed a message from Richard Loving to the court: "[T]ell the Court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia." [21] The case, Loving v.
They filed a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to hear the case. [5] There had been a circuit split on the issue of whether Title VII protects employees from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Second Circuit in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. and the Seventh Circuit in Hively v.
upheld separate but equal schools in San Francisco Plessy v. Ferguson: 1896 163 U.S. 537 separate but equal for public facilities Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education: 1899 175 U.S. 528 de jure segregation of races Lum v. Rice: 1927 275 U.S. 78 separate schools for Chinese pupils from white schoolchildren Roberto Alvarez v.
The ruling reversed a lower court decision, which the justices said swept too broadly into areas like peaceful but disruptive conduct, and returned the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Lawrence then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case. The Supreme Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas in a 6–3 decision, and by extension invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making all forms of private, consensual non-procreative sexual activities between two consenting individuals of either sex ...
The railroad could refuse service to passengers who refused to comply, and the Supreme Court ruled this did not infringe upon the 13th and 14th amendments. The "separate but equal" doctrine applied in theory to all public facilities: not only railroad cars but schools, medical facilities, theaters, restaurants, restrooms, and drinking fountains.
Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that convicted felons could be barred from voting beyond their sentence and parole without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.