Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

McLaughlin v. Florida - 379 U.S. 184, 85 S. Ct. 283 (1964)

Rule:

An exercise of the state police power which trenches upon the constitutionally protected freedom from invidious official discrimination based on race, even though enacted pursuant to a valid state interest, bears a heavy burden of justification and will be upheld only if it is necessary, and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy.

Facts:

Defendants were convicted in a Florida state court of violating Fla. Stat. Ann. § 798.05, which prohibited the habitual occupation of a room at night by "any Negro man and white woman, or any white man and Negro woman" who were not married. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and upheld the validity of the statute against defendants' claim that the statute denied them equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants appealed.

Issue:

Was the ban on interracial cohabitation forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court reversed, holding that the ban on interracial cohabitation was invidious discrimination forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. The Court rejected the prosecution's claims of an overriding statutory purpose for the racial classification, which was to prevent breaches of the basic concepts of sexual decency. According to the Court, nothing in the prosecution’s suggested legislative purpose made it essential to punish promiscuity of one racial group and not that of another. Moreover, the Court rejected the argument that the interracial cohabitation law was valid because it was ancillary to and served the same purpose as the state's law against interracial marriage. Without expressing a view on the validity of the law against interracial marriage, the Court ruled that the prosecution had offered no argument that the policy against interracial marriage could not be as adequately served by Fla. Stat. Ann. ch. 798's neutral ban on illicit behavior, without resorting to a provision that singled out a promiscuous interracial couple for special statutory treatment.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates