Critical Thinking Analysis. Social Sciences Essay.

Student’s Name
Instructor
Course Title
Date
Critical Thinking Analysis
Section One: Summarize the case.
In Lovings v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the defendants were charged with violating the anti-miscegenation laws of Virginia, including the Due Process Clause. Mildred Jeter was a black woman while Richard Loving was a white man living in the state of Virginia (gsu.edu). They went to the District of Columbia and got married, after which they returned to Virginia. However, they were charged with violating the anti-miscegenation statute of the state that banned interracial marriages. The court found them guilty, and they were sentenced to one year in jail. Nevertheless, the trial judge decided to suspend the sentence if the Lovings agreed to leave the State of Virginia and not to return until 25 years are over.
Section Two: In bullet form, analyze and identify arguments for the defendant.
* The defendants argued that the Lovings violated the law that banned marriage between individuals from different races, which the law stated that it was a felony for interracial marriages.
* The couple was referred to the ACLU, which is a guardian of liberty in the U.S., and it represented them in court (aclu.org).
* The court also held that it was unconstitutional for the state to ban interracial marriages (oyez.org).
* The legal battle by the Lovings started in November 1963 with the assistance of Philip Hirschkop and Bernard Cohen, who asked judge Bazile to vacate the conviction and set aside the sentences that have been given by the court.
Section Three: In bullet form, analyze and identify arguments for the plaintiff.
* The plaintiff was the Lovings who argued that they had not violated anti-miscegenation law about the equal protection clause of the 14thh amendment.
* The question that was presented is whether “Virginia's anti Miscegenation law violates Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?”
* According to the 14thh amendment, all individuals who have been born or naturalized in the U.S. are regarded as citizens of the U.S. and are therefore subjects to the laws of the state where they reside (laws.com).
* Therefore, no laws should deprive the immunities or privileges of the liberty, life, or property of individuals living in the state without following the due process of the law.
* However, the State of Virginia argued that the couple had violated two of the “anti-miscegenation statues” (Strauss)
Section Four: Did the court rule for the plaintiff or the defendant? What was the vote (out of 9 Justices)? Explain the ruling in detail, including the reasoning for that ruling.