mclaughlin
florida
argued
decided
december
florida
criminal
statute
prohibits
unmarried
interracial
couple
habitually
living
occupying
room
nighttime
florida
statute
penalizes
precisely
conduct
engaged
members
race
held
florida
statute
denies
equal
protection
laws
guaranteed
fourteenth
amendment
invalid
pp
reversed
william
coleman
louis
pollak
argued
cause
appellants
briefs
jack
greenberg
james
nabrit
iii
james
mahorner
assistant
attorney
general
florida
argued
cause
appellee
brief
james
kynes
attorney
general
florida
justice
white
delivered
opinion
issue
case
validity
conviction
florida
statutes
providing
negro
man
white
woman
white
man
negro
woman
married
shall
habitually
live
occupy
nighttime
room
shall
punished
imprisonment
exceeding
twelve
months
fine
exceeding
five
hundred
dollars
challenged
statute
part
chapter
entitled
adultery
fornication
section
forbids
living
adultery
proscribes
lewd
cohabitation
sections
general
application
require
proof
intercourse
sustain
conviction
authorize
imprisonment
two
years
section
also
general
application
proscribes
fornication
authorizes
jail
sentence
fourth
section
chapter
makes
criminal
white
person
negro
living
together
adultery
fornication
prison
sentence
authorized
conduct
reaches
appears
proscribed
first
two
sections
chapter
section
section
issue
case
applies
white
person
negro
habitually
occupy
room
nighttime
offense
however
distinguishable
sections
chapter
one
require
proof
intercourse
along
elements
crime
appellants
charged
violation
elements
offense
described
trial
judge
habitual
occupation
room
night
negro
white
person
married
state
presented
evidence
going
factor
appellants
constitutional
contentions
overruled
jury
returned
verdict
guilty
solely
authority
pace
alabama
florida
affirmed
sustained
validity
appellants
claims
section
denied
equal
protection
laws
guaranteed
fourteenth
amendment
noted
probable
jurisdiction
deal
single
issue
equal
protection
basis
set
aside
convictions
readily
apparent
treats
interracial
couple
made
white
person
negro
differently
couple
couple
negro
white
person
convicted
section
proscribes
precise
conduct
banned
florida
makes
claim
contrary
however
whites
negroes
engage
forbidden
conduct
covered
section
member
interracial
couple
subject
penalty
situation
pace
alabama
supra
relied
upon
controlling
authority
view
however
pace
represents
limited
view
equal
protection
clause
withstood
analysis
subsequent
decisions
case
let
stand
conviction
alabama
statute
forbidding
adultery
fornication
white
person
negro
imposing
greater
penalty
allowed
another
alabama
statute
general
application
proscribing
conduct
whatever
race
participants
opinion
acknowledged
purpose
equal
protection
clause
prevent
hostile
discriminating
state
legislation
person
class
persons
equality
protection
laws
implies
person
whatever
race
shall
subjected
offence
greater
different
punishment
taking
quite
literally
words
offence
emphasis
supplied
pointed
alabama
designated
separate
offense
commission
white
person
negro
identical
acts
forbidden
general
provisions
therefore
impermissible
discrimination
difference
punishment
directed
offense
designated
case
offense
committed
white
negro
treated
alike
pace
alabama
law
regulating
conduct
negroes
whites
satisfied
equal
protection
clause
since
applied
equally
among
members
class
reached
without
regard
fact
statute
reach
types
couples
performing
identical
conduct
without
necessity
justify
difference
penalty
established
two
offenses
alabama
laws
applied
equally
applicable
different
treatment
accorded
interracial
intraracial
couples
irrelevant
narrow
view
equal
protection
clause
soon
swept
away
acknowledging
currency
view
law
deals
alike
certain
class
obnoxious
equal
protection
clause
general
proposition
undeniably
true
gulf
ellis
said
equally
true
classification
made
arbitrarily
classification
must
always
rest
upon
difference
bears
reasonable
relation
act
respect
classification
proposed
never
made
arbitrarily
without
basis
ibid
rbitrary
selection
never
justified
calling
classification
approach
confirmed
atchison
matthews
numerous
cases
see
american
sugar
ref
louisiana
southern
greene
royster
guano
virginia
elec
appliance
day
louisville
gas
elec
coleman
hartford
steam
boiler
inspection
ins
harrison
skinner
oklahoma
ex
rel
williamson
kotch
pilot
hernandez
texas
griffin
illinois
opinion
black
announcing
judgment
frankfurter
concurring
morey
doud
central
pennsylvania
douglas
california
judicial
inquiry
equal
protection
clause
therefore
end
showing
equal
application
among
members
class
defined
legislation
courts
must
reach
determine
question
whether
classifications
drawn
statute
reasonable
light
purpose
case
whether
arbitrary
invidious
discrimination
classes
covered
florida
cohabitation
law
excluded
question
pace
ignored
must
faced
normally
widest
discretion
allowed
legislative
judgment
determining
whether
attack
rather
manifestations
evil
aimed
normally
judgment
given
benefit
every
conceivable
circumstance
might
suffice
characterize
classification
reasonable
rather
arbitrary
invidious
see
mcgowan
maryland
two
guys
mcginley
allied
stores
ohio
bowers
railway
express
agency
new
york
lindsley
natural
carbonic
gas
deal
classification
based
upon
race
participants
must
viewed
light
historical
fact
central
purpose
fourteenth
amendment
eliminate
racial
discrimination
emanating
official
sources
strong
policy
renders
racial
classifications
constitutionally
suspect
bolling
sharpe
subject
rigid
scrutiny
korematsu
circumstances
irrelevant
constitutionally
acceptable
legislative
purpose
hirabayashi
thus
racial
classifications
held
invalid
variety
contexts
see
virginia
board
elections
hamm
designation
race
voting
property
records
anderson
martin
designation
race
nomination
papers
ballots
watson
city
memphis
segregation
public
parks
playgrounds
brown
board
education
segregation
public
schools
deal
racial
classification
embodied
criminal
statute
context
power
state
weighs
heavily
upon
individual
group
must
especially
sensitive
policies
equal
protection
clause
reflected
congressional
enactments
dating
intended
secure
full
equal
benefit
laws
proceedings
security
persons
property
subject
persons
like
punishment
pains
penalties
taxes
licenses
exactions
every
kind
inquiry
therefore
whether
clearly
appears
relevant
materials
overriding
statutory
purpose
requiring
proscription
specified
conduct
engaged
white
person
negro
otherwise
without
justification
racial
classification
contained
reduced
invidious
discrimination
forbidden
equal
protection
clause
florida
relying
upon
pace
alabama
supra
found
legal
discrimination
gave
consideration
statutory
purpose
state
brief
however
says
legislative
purpose
like
sections
chapter
prevent
breaches
basic
concepts
sexual
decency
see
reason
quarrel
state
characterization
statute
dealing
illicit
extramarital
premarital
promiscuity
find
nothing
suggested
legislative
purpose
however
makes
essential
punish
promiscuity
one
racial
group
another
suggestion
white
person
negro
likely
habitually
occupy
room
together
white
negro
couple
engage
illicit
intercourse
sections
indicate
legislative
conviction
promiscuity
interracial
couple
presents
particular
problems
requiring
separate
different
treatment
suggested
policy
chapter
adequately
served
sections
deal
adultery
lewd
cohabitation
fornication
order
general
application
section
prohibits
white
negro
living
state
adultery
fornication
imposes
lesser
period
imprisonment
either
applicable
persons
simple
fornication
interracial
couple
covered
general
provision
therefore
case
class
defined
law
evil
mainly
feared
patsone
pennsylvania
vils
field
may
different
dimensions
proportions
requiring
different
remedies
williamson
lee
optical
even
one
state
done
much
fast
buck
bell
general
evil
partially
corrected
may
times
without
serve
justify
limited
application
criminal
law
legislative
discretion
employ
piecemeal
approach
stops
short
permitting
state
narrow
statutory
coverage
focus
racial
group
classifications
bear
far
heavier
burden
justification
law
lays
unequal
hand
committed
intrinsically
quality
offense
sterilizes
one
made
invidious
discrimination
selected
particular
race
nationality
oppressive
treatment
yick
wo
hopkins
gaines
canada
skinner
oklahoma
ex
rel
williamson
ii
florida
remaining
argument
related
law
interracial
marriage
stat
ann
light
certain
legislative
history
fourteenth
amendment
said
immune
attack
equal
protection
clause
interracial
cohabitation
law
likewise
valid
argued
ancillary
serves
purpose
miscegenation
law
reject
argument
without
reaching
question
validity
state
prohibition
interracial
marriage
soundness
arguments
rooted
history
amendment
even
posit
constitutionality
ban
marriage
negro
white
follow
cohabitation
law
subjected
independent
examination
fourteenth
amendment
ssuming
purposes
argument
basic
prohibition
constitutional
case
law
interracial
marriage
follow
constitutional
limit
means
may
used
enforce
oyama
california
see
also
buchanan
warley
section
must
therefore
pass
muster
fourteenth
amendment
reasons
quite
similar
already
given
think
fails
test
involved
exercise
state
police
power
trenches
upon
constitutionally
protected
freedom
invidious
official
discrimination
based
race
law
even
though
enacted
pursuant
valid
state
interest
bears
heavy
burden
justification
said
upheld
necessary
merely
rationally
related
accomplishment
permissible
state
policy
see
cases
cited
supra
provisions
chapter
neutral
race
express
general
strong
state
policy
promiscuous
conduct
whether
engaged
married
may
marry
may
provisions
enforced
reach
illicit
relations
kind
way
protect
integrity
marriage
laws
state
including
claimed
valid
ban
interracial
marriage
provisions
moreover
punish
premarital
sexual
relations
severely
severely
instances
provisions
focus
interracial
couple
florida
offered
argument
state
policy
interracial
marriage
adequately
served
general
neutral
existing
ban
illicit
behavior
provision
singles
promiscuous
interracial
couple
special
statutory
treatment
short
shown
necessary
adjunct
state
ban
interracial
marriage
accordingly
invalidate
without
expressing
views
state
prohibition
interracial
marriage
reverse
convictions
reversed
footnotes
whoever
lives
open
state
adultery
shall
punished
imprisonment
state
prison
exceeding
two
years
county
jail
exceeding
one
year
fine
exceeding
five
hundred
dollars
either
parties
living
open
state
adultery
married
parties
living
shall
deemed
guilty
offense
provided
section
man
woman
married
lewdly
lasciviously
associate
cohabit
together
man
woman
married
unmarried
guilty
open
gross
lewdness
lascivious
behavior
shall
punished
imprisonment
state
prison
exceeding
two
years
county
jail
exceeding
one
year
fine
exceeding
three
hundred
dollars
man
commits
fornication
woman
shall
punished
imprisonment
exceeding
three
months
fine
exceeding
thirty
dollars
white
person
negro
mulatto
shall
live
adultery
fornication
shall
punished
imprisonment
exceeding
twelve
months
fine
exceeding
one
thousand
dollars
negro
man
white
woman
white
man
negro
woman
married
shall
habitually
live
occupy
nighttime
room
shall
punished
imprisonment
exceeding
twelve
months
fine
exceeding
five
hundred
dollars
section
proscribes
two
offenses
open
gross
lewdness
lascivious
behavior
either
man
woman
lewd
lascivious
association
cohabitation
man
woman
latter
offense
identical
proscribed
except
contains
additional
requirement
one
participants
married
third
party
conviction
either
section
requires
showing
parties
lived
together
maintained
sexual
relations
period
time
conjugal
relation
husband
wife
braswell
state
lockhart
state
cases
involving
wildman
state
penton
state
cases
involving
respectively
statute
unlike
sections
chapter
relate
habitual
conduct
proscribes
single
occasional
acts
fornication
see
collins
state
found
decisions
construing
operative
language
live
adultery
fornication
substantially
identical
phrase
lives
open
state
adultery
construed
mean
habitual
conduct
language
sharply
contrasts
phrase
commits
fornication
proscribes
casual
acts
fornication
textual
analysis
therefore
leads
us
conclude
florida
courts
give
similar
construction
accorded
conclusion
duplicative
provisions
consistent
apparent
lack
prosecutions
parramore
state
compare
note
supra
appellants
present
two
contentions
unnecessary
us
consider
view
disposition
principal
claim
first
challenge
constitutionality
stat
ann
marriages
white
negro
persons
prohibited
unlawful
white
male
person
residing
state
intermarry
negro
female
person
like
manner
unlawful
white
female
person
residing
state
intermarry
negro
male
person
every
marriage
formed
solemnized
contravention
provisions
section
shall
utterly
null
void
appellants
final
claim
convictions
violated
due
process
either
proof
appellant
mclaughlin
race
florida
definition
negro
unconstitutionally
vague
stat
ann
provides
words
negro
colored
colored
persons
mulatto
persons
color
applied
persons
include
every
person
african
negro
blood
trial
one
arresting
officers
permitted
objection
state
conclusion
race
appellant
based
observation
physical
appearance
appellants
claim
statutory
definition
circular
provides
independent
means
determining
race
defendant
ancestors
testimony
based
appearance
impermissible
related
objective
standard
florida
argues
florida
appellate
procedure
claim
abandoned
appellants
failed
argue
brief
presented
florida
defect
argument
counsel
consists
assumption
discrimination
made
laws
alabama
punishment
provided
offence
plaintiff
error
indicted
committed
person
african
race
committed
white
person
two
sections
code
cited
entirely
consistent
one
prescribes
generally
punishment
offence
committed
persons
different
sexes
prescribes
punishment
offence
committed
two
sexes
different
races
neither
section
discrimination
either
race
sect
equally
includes
offence
persons
two
sexes
white
black
sect
applies
punishment
offenders
white
black
indeed
offence
latter
section
aimed
committed
without
involving
persons
races
punishment
whatever
discrimination
made
punishment
prescribed
two
sections
directed
offence
designated
person
particular
color
race
punishment
offending
person
whether
white
black
presented
statute
example
prohibited
negro
male
carnal
knowledge
white
female
penalized
negro
statute
unquestionably
held
deny
equal
protection
even
though
applied
equally
applied
see
strauder
west
virginia
ho
ah
kow
nunan
fed
cas
cal
field
chinese
pigtail
case
manifest
inadequacy
approach
requiring
equal
application
class
defined
statute
one
may
conclude
pace
actually
ruled
sub
silentio
different
treatment
meted
interracial
intraracial
couples
based
reasonable
legislative
purpose
reach
conclusion
failed
articulate
give
reasons
reasons
stated
infra
reject
contention
presented
criminal
statute
presently
review
grounded
reasonable
legislative
policy
pace
holding
may
undergone
modification
years
later
cited
proposition
different
punishment
offence
may
inflicted
particular
circumstances
provided
dealt
alike
similarly
situated
moore
missouri
section
florida
statutes
defendants
charged
simply
prohibits
habitual
cohabiting
room
members
opposite
races
also
members
opposite
sexes
terms
section
supra
explicitly
seek
avoid
circumstances
wherein
high
potentials
sexual
engagement
section
florida
statutes
prohibits
intraracial
lewd
cohabitation
generally
interpreted
requiring
additional
element
sexual
occurrence
distinguished
provisions
section
supra
require
high
potential
occurrence
legislative
purpose
enacting
sections
supra
prevent
illegal
sexual
occurrences
purpose
legislature
enacting
sections
florida
statutes
prevent
breaches
basic
concepts
sexual
decency
whether
committed
interracial
interracial
parties
brief
appellee
skinner
case
invalidated
grounds
oklahoma
law
providing
sterilization
multiple
offenders
exempting
offenses
arising
prohibition
laws
revenue
acts
embezzlement
political
offenses
said
oklahoma
makes
attempt
say
commits
larceny
trespass
trick
fraud
biologically
inheritable
traits
commits
embezzlement
lacks
oklahoma
line
larceny
fraud
embezzlement
determined
noted
reference
time
fraudulent
intent
convert
property
taker
use
arises
riley
state
supra
cr
slightest
basis
inferring
line
significance
eugenics
inheritability
criminal
traits
follows
neat
legal
distinctions
law
marked
two
offenses
terms
fines
imprisonment
crimes
larceny
embezzlement
rate
oklahoma
code
comes
sterilization
pains
penalties
law
different
equal
protection
clause
indeed
formula
empty
words
conspicuously
artificial
lines
drawn
see
note
supra
see
also
fla
art
justice
harlan
concurring
join
opinion
following
comments
agree
cohabitation
statute
shown
necessary
integrity
antimarriage
law
assumed
arguendo
valid
necessity
mere
reasonable
relationship
proper
test
see
ante
pp
naacp
alabama
saia
new
york
martin
struthers
thornhill
alabama
schneider
state
see
mcgowan
maryland
frankfurter
concurring
fact
cases
arose
principles
first
amendment
make
inapplicable
principles
free
speech
carried
fourteenth
amendment
necessity
test
developed
protect
free
speech
state
infringement
equally
applicable
case
involving
state
racial
discrimination
prohibition
lies
heart
fourteenth
amendment
fact
cases
involved
deemed
constitutionally
excessive
exercise
legislative
power
relating
single
state
policy
whereas
case
involves
two
legislative
policies
prevention
extramarital
relations
prevention
miscegenation
effectuated
separate
statutes
serve
vitiate
soundness
conclusion
validity
state
antimarriage
law
need
decided
case
legitimacy
cohabitation
statute
considered
depend
upon
ancillary
antimarriage
statute
former
must
deemed
unnecessary
principle
established
cited
cases
light
nondiscriminatory
extramarital
relations
statutes
however
interracial
cohabitation
statute
considered
rest
upon
discrete
state
interest
existing
independently
antimarriage
law
falls
weight
justice
stewart
justice
douglas
joins
concurring
concur
judgment
agree
said
opinion
implies
criminal
law
kind
involved
might
constitutionally
valid
state
show
overriding
statutory
purpose
implication
join
conceive
valid
legislative
purpose
constitution
state
law
makes
color
person
skin
test
whether
conduct
criminal
offense
appellants
convicted
fined
imprisoned
statute
made
conduct
criminal
different
races
far
statute
goes
conduct
illegal
white
negroes
might
limited
room
equal
protection
clause
civil
law
requiring
keeping
racially
segregated
public
records
statistical
valid
public
purposes
cf
tancil
woolls
ante
deal
criminal
law
imposes
criminal
punishment
think
simply
possible
state
law
valid
constitution
makes
criminality
act
depend
upon
race
actor
discrimination
kind
invidious
per
se
since
think
criminal
law
clearly
invalid
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
consider
impact
due
process
clause
amendment
thirteenth
fifteenth
amendments