enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

    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.

  3. Mildred and Richard Loving - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_and_Richard_Loving

    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.

  4. Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in...

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and black people were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex.

  5. The heartbreaking love story behind the historic Obergefell v ...

    www.aol.com/news/heartbreaking-love-story-behind...

    Hodges Supreme Court ruling in 2015 that guaranteed the legal right for same-sex couples to get married, there is a love story behind the legal documents. ... Obergefell also spoke out in 2022 ...

  6. Craig v. Boren - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_v._Boren

    Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. [1] The case was argued by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while she was working for the American ...

  7. Separate but equal - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

    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.

  8. List of LGBTQ-related cases in the United States Supreme Court

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBTQ-related...

    Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. [19] It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), [20] when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional. [21]

  9. AOL Mail

    mail.aol.com/d?reason=invalid_cred

    Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!