Supreme Court - Loving v. Virginia

In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).


"The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

Since the establishment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Courts have found a way to apply the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Although the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that certain rights are protected against state laws, the Supreme Court has also made clear that certain rights cannot be limited by a state law. In certain cases the court will selectively incorporate and make a decision on what the state can and cannot do by using the justification of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I can agree with this process to a certain degree because there are some cases that has substantial effect on society and people are facing injustices that they should not face like Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving. No one should have to move from their homes to avoid going to prison because they are in a bi-racial relationship. The only troubling thing about the power of Judicial Review is that the law heavily rest on the opinions and interpretation of these judges. Nothing is set in stone when it comes to our judicial system, because it always changes with time and interpretation.

The law can be bias sometimes and depending on the case or the circumstances it does not always protect the rights of a citizen like in the case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005). Federal Government destroyed home grown marijuana that Raich needed for medical use, because it would affect interstate commerce. Raich felt that the ruling violated her 9th and 10th amendment, so to a certain degree Judicial Review protects citizens from injustices.