CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-EQUAL PROTECTION-MISCEGENATION STATUTE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Authors

Donald D. Davis, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Petitioners, a female white and a male Negro, applied to respondent, county clerk of Los Angeles County, for a marriage license. Respondent refused to issue the license, relying on sections 60 and 69 of the California Code. Petitioners brought a mandamus proceeding to compel respondent to issue the license, contending that the statutes relied on by respondent were unconstitutional in that they prohibited the free exercise of their religion. Held, in a four to three decision, the statute is unconstitutional. Three justices of the majority found that the statute violated the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and was too vague and uncertain to be enforcible. A fourth justice found an unconstitutional interference with religious freedom. Perez v. Lippold, (Cal. 1948) 198 P. (2d) 17.

Recommended Citation

Donald D. Davis, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-EQUAL PROTECTION-MISCEGENATION STATUTE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, 47 Mich. L. Rev. 834 (1949).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss6/11