Case Briefs- Civil and Constitutional Law Part 1

And mrs loving were an interracial couple they lived

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders, as inevitably it must, determined that they should have the power to do just this." • There was a lot of deference to Congress at the time, because a war was going on. In a dissent it was argued that not one single case of espionage by a Japanese- American was known, and therefore there was no compelling reason for the blanket order to move 100,000 to camps. o In the dissent's opinion, a much more narrow law targeting on those acting suspiciously would have sufficed. Therefore the blanket law should not meet strict scrutiny. • • This case was the first to define the strict scrutiny standard. Although the Court found that the law met the standard and was therefore constitutional, they later used the standard to overturn a large number of racially discriminatory laws. o For example, see Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1 (1967)). Note that this case turned on the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, not the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because the 14th Amendment only applies to the States, and was not 'reverse- incorporated' to apply to the Federal government until ten years later in Bolling v. Sharpe (347 U.S. 497 (1954)). Loving v. Virginia (Equal Protection, Facially- Discriminatory Laws, evolving standards) • • • • Mr. and Mrs. Loving were an interracial couple. They lived in Virginia, and got married in Washington DC (after being denied a marriage license in Virginia...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online