Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 95, December 2009, Issue 8
Making Good on Good Intentions
by Katharine T. Bartlett
The State of State Anti-takeover Law
by Michal Barzuza
Incarceration, Accommodation, and Strict Scrutiny
by James Nelson
Internet Radio: The Case for a Technology Neutral Royalty Standard
by Andrew Stockment
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
The Confrontation Clause and the High Stakes of the Court's Consideration of Briscoe v. Virginia
Essay by Stephen Wills Murphy and Darryl K. Brown

The Constitutional Foundation for Fact Deference in National Security Cases
Response by Robert F. Turner

Tiered Originality and the Dualism of Copyright Incentives
Response by Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Counterinsurgency, The War on Terror, And The Laws of War: A Response
Response by David E. Graham

[More]
Announcements
December Issue

January Notes Pool Announcement

The Virginia Law Review announces the results of its September Notes Pool

[More]

Email Updates
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
Submit to In Brief

Forthcoming

Archive

Subscriptions

Advertisements

Customer Service

Short-Article Policy

Masthead

Contact Information
Virginia Law Review Association
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789

Phone: 434-924-3079
Fax: 434-982-2818
E-Mail: lawrev@virginia.edu

Contact a staff member

May 2009, Volume 95, Issue 3

Deciding on Doctrine: Anti-miscegenation Statutes and the Development of Equal Protection Analysis
by Rebecca Schoff
95 Va. L. Rev. 627 (2009)   View PDF

This note explores why the Warren Court chose the path it did to invalidate anti-miscegenation laws. Using evidence from the papers of three of the Justices, it argues that the Court was very close to announcing a per se rule against racial classifications, as Stewart’s concurrence advocated in the context of criminal laws. More generally, this note analyzes the Warren Court’s treatment of anti-miscegenation statutes with the object of gaining perspective on the relationship between decision and doctrine: Assuming that Justices are in agreement as to which party should prevail, what factors, legal and nonlegal, can influence a Court’s preference for one doctrine over another? Had the Court followed Stewart’s reasoning, review of criminal statutes, at least, would not require even a cursory analysis of the legislature’s purpose once a racial classification was detected. Loving’s now-controversial place in right-to-marriage jurisprudence, however, would have been minimized, if not eliminated. It may be difficult to predict the ramifications of doctrinal choices, particularly with respect to the interaction between equal protection, due process, and fundamental rights. Ultimately, this paper argues that the Warren Court showed a preference for a less rule-like approach to equal protection analysis in part because the conditions surrounding desegregation exacerbated the difficulty of analyzing the scope of rules. Recovering the circumstances under which the Warren Court viewed its potential paths to a ruling against Virginia in Loving may help us to understand how and why Courts resolve such problems in particular ways.

Click on an icon below to access the full text of this article*

Westlaw Westlaw   |  LexisNexis LexisNexis   |  HeinOnline HeinOnline   |  SSRN SSRN   

* These are third-party content providers; they may require a separate subscription or charge a fee for access.