Facts
- Andrea D. Perez (identified as white) and Sylvester S. Davis, Jr. (identified as Black) applied for a marriage license and a certificate of registry in Los Angeles County.
- The county clerk refused solely because California Civil Code §§ 60 and 69 barred marriages between white persons and “Negroes,” “mulattoes,” “Mongolians,” and “members of the Malay race,” and declared such marriages illegal and void.
- Petitioners sought a writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court compelling the clerk to issue the license and certificate.
- Petitioners alleged the prohibitions violated the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection and due process) and infringed free exercise of religion because their church was willing to marry them.
Issues
- Whether Civil Code §§ 60 and 69 violate equal protection by restricting marriage based on race.
- Whether the statutes impermissibly infringe the liberty interest in marriage and thus deny due process of law.
- Whether the statutes unconstitutionally interfere with petitioners’ free exercise of religion by preventing a religious marriage recognized by their faith.
Decision
- The court, sitting in original mandamus, granted the writ and ordered the county clerk to issue the marriage license and certificate of registry.
- A 4–3 majority held Civil Code §§ 60 and 69 unconstitutional as applied to prohibit interracial marriage.
- The plurality relied principally on equal protection and due process, emphasizing the fundamental character of the right to marry and the absence of a sufficient justification for race-based restrictions.
- A concurrence agreed in the judgment on free exercise grounds, concluding the statutes impermissibly burdened petitioners’ religious practice.
Legal Principles
- Marriage is a fundamental right protected as a matter of individual liberty; restrictions require an important social objective and reasonable means.
- Race-based restrictions on access to marriage constitute discriminatory classifications that require strong justification; “equal application” to both parties does not cure a race-based ban.
- Public health or hereditary-based marriage regulations, if permissible, must be based on individualized assessments rather than racial group classifications and must be administered without racial discrimination.
- Statutory racial categories that are indeterminate and difficult to administer may reinforce constitutional defects by inviting arbitrary enforcement.
- The state may regulate conduct for legitimate ends, but may not impose discriminatory burdens that substantially interfere with the free exercise of religion.
Conclusion
The California Supreme Court invalidated statutory prohibitions on interracial marriage and compelled issuance of a marriage license, holding that race-based marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees of equality and liberty, with a separate concurrence finding an additional violation of religious freedom.