When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States - Wikipedia

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

    Sharp (1948) that the Californian anti-miscegenation laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the first time since Reconstruction that a state court declared such laws unconstitutional, and making California the first state since Ohio in 1887 to overturn its anti-miscegenation law. The case raised constitutional ...

  3. Anti-miscegenation laws - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

    An anti-miscegenation law was enacted by the Nazi government in September 1935 as a part of the Nuremberg Laws. The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour ('Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre'), enacted on 15 September 1935, forbade sexual relations and marriages between Germans classified as so ...

  4. Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

    Roldan v. Los Angeles County (1933), 129 Cal. App. 267, 18 P.2d 706, was a 1930s court case in California confirming that the state's anti-miscegenation laws at the time did not bar the marriage of a Filipino and a white person. [33] However, the precedent lasted barely a week before the law was specifically amended to illegalize such marriages ...

  5. List of United States court cases involving the Fourteenth ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    banned anti-miscegenation laws: Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education: 1969 396 U.S. 1218 changed Brown's requirement of desegregation "with all deliberate speed" to one of "desegregation now" Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education: 1971 402 U.S. 1 establish bussing as a solution Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson: 1971 404 U.S 1215 ...

  6. Roldan v. Los Angeles County - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roldan_v._Los_Angeles_County

    Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal. App. 267, 18 P.2d 706, was a 1933 court case in California confirming that the state's anti-miscegenation laws at the time did not bar the marriage of a Filipino and a white person. [1] However, the precedent lasted barely a week before the law was specifically amended to illegalize such marriages. [2]

  7. Mildred and Richard Loving - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_and_Richard_Loving

    In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, striking down the Virginia statute and all state anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional, for violating due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment. [3] On June 29, 1975, a drunk driver struck the Lovings' car in Caroline County, Virginia. Richard was killed in ...

  8. Supreme Court updates: Justices clash over transgender health ...

    www.aol.com/supreme-court-live-updates-latest...

    The case focuses on Tennessee's ban on the treatment for minors in the state. ... because scientific arguments against miscegenation were made before the court’s ruling allowing mixed-race ...

  9. Perez v. Sharp - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp

    Perez v. Sharp, [1] also known as Perez v. Lippold or Perez v.Moroney, is a 1948 case decided by the Supreme Court of California in which the court held by a 4–3 majority that the state's ban on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.