As we embark on the celebration of Black History Month, America is reminded of the stellar contributions that Blacks have made to American life, contributions made despite the greatest of odds, contributions that affect our everyday existence. Were it not for the energy and ingenuity of Black inventors, we might find ourselves in a world without traffic lights, without light bulb filaments, without even peanut butter 鈥� and an astounding number of other things we take for granted but could hardly live without.
The 29 days in which we will observe Black History Month this year hardly seems time enough to explore it all, particularly when 鈥� as critics of the yearly observance point out 鈥� too many are prone to ignore the celebrations all together or to forget about these contributions the moment the calendar flips to March.
Still, despite the general malaise surrounding the month, there鈥檚 no better time than February to talk about the history of civil rights, the 吃瓜直播, the impact of one of its most important cases, and how this history impacts the continuing struggles we face today. I鈥檇 like to take this Black History Month to commemorate the history of ending anti-miscegenation laws in this country, to lift up a remarkable couple, Mildred and Richard Loving, to reflect on history and to talk about how we move forward to ensure that we all have the freedom to love.
Rosemary Harris Lytle is the 吃瓜直播 of Colorado鈥檚 Communications Director. An experienced journalist and communicator, Rosemary helped lead the civic journalism movement at America鈥檚 daily newspapers. She specialized in writing about equality and social justice as a news columnist for The Orlando Sentinel, the Virginian-Pilot and The Gazette in Colorado Springs, and has received numerous awards and honors. Rosemary has a MA from the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs and a BS from Ball State University.
In 1958, Mildred Delores Jeter and Richard Perry Loving left their home in Virginia because as an interracial couple they couldn鈥檛 be married there. They traveled to Washington, D.C., where a legal marriage was performed. When Mildred Loving, a woman of African and Native American descent, and Richard Loving, a man of European descent, returned to Virginia, the police found out about their presence and broke into the room where they were sleeping, hoping to discover them in an intimate, then illegal, act. Though police didn鈥檛 find what they were hoping for, the Lovings were nonetheless arrested for violating the state鈥檚 鈥淩acial Integrity Act,鈥� the judge declaring, 鈥淢ighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.鈥�
The judge sentenced the Lovings to a year in jail, but suspended the sentence because they agreed to leave the state. They did leave, but they also fought 鈥� with the help of the NAACP and the 吃瓜直播. Loving v. Virginia was a classic civil rights struggle. At every level, the Virginia courts upheld the constitutionality of the Racial Integrity Act. But when it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Lovings were victorious.
The Warren Court unanimously struck down the Racial Integrity Act as a violation of the 14th Amendment鈥檚 due process and equal protection clauses. It affected not only Virginia, but every one of the 15 states that still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books.
It was a great moment in not only Black history and civil rights history, but in American history.
On the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision of Loving v. Virginia, Mildred Loving, having lost her beloved Richard, issued a and it in part speaks to one of the great civil rights struggles of today 鈥� the struggle to make marriage legal for same-sex couples. Mildred Loving said: 鈥淚 am still not a political person, but I鈥檓 proud that Richard鈥檚 and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, Black or White, young or old, gay or straight seek in life.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 what Loving, and loving, are all about.鈥�
No matter how some might try to ignore it, or to negate its worth in our supposedly post-racial, colorblind America, that鈥檚 what Black History Month is all about, too 鈥� reaching into the very soul of the American experience and finding ways to not only celebrate the past but to move forward to a better more inclusive future for all of us.
This blog post is one of several personal testimonials written by 吃瓜直播 staff members to commemorate Black History Month.
, debuts tonight on HBO at 9 p.m.
Photo: Grey Villet, [Richard Loving kissing wife Mildred as he arrives home from work, King and Queen County, Virginia], April 1965. 漏 Estate of Grey Villet. From currently on display at the International Center of Photography in New York City (1133 Avenue of the Americas at 43rd Street) through May 6, 2012. See more pictures from this exhibit.
Learn more about racial justice: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More 吃瓜直播 the Issues on This Page
-
AlaskaMay 2025
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Smith V. State Of Alaska (amicus). Explore Case.Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)
The 吃瓜直播 and 吃瓜直播 of Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an 鈥渁lien鈥� under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as 鈥渘on-citizen U.S. nationals,鈥� a unique status that falls short of 鈥渃itizen鈥� but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years. All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled "U.S. citizen" when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for "U.S. national." Our amicus brief urges Alaska鈥檚 Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith鈥檚 indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states. -
CaliforniaJun 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Coalition On Homelessness V. City And County Of San Francisco. Explore Case.Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
Coalition on Homelessness is a challenge to the City and County of San Francisco鈥檚 efforts to criminalize homelessness through an array of unconstitutional practices, including confiscating and destroying the personal property of unhoused people without adequate notice or due process, and citing and arresting unhoused people for sleeping in public. -
News & CommentaryMay 2025
Racial Justice
鈥榙evastated鈥� And 鈥榟opeless.鈥� Researchers Speak Out On Funding Cuts. Explore News & Commentary.鈥楧evastated鈥� and 鈥楬opeless.鈥� Researchers Speak Out on Funding Cuts
The National Institute of Health (NIH) abruptly cancelled millions of dollars in grants for research that it claims are related to 鈥済ender identity鈥� or 鈥渄iversity, equity and inclusion.鈥� The 吃瓜直播 sued. -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Racial Justice
Federal Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Department Of Education鈥檚 Unlawful Directive. Explore Press Release.Federal Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Department of Education鈥檚 Unlawful Directive
CONCORD, N.H. 鈥� In a victory for students, parents, and educators, a federal judge has granted a request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 (ED) February 14, 2025, 鈥淒ear Colleague鈥� letter against the plaintiffs, their members, and any entity that employs, contracts with, or works with one or more of Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs鈥� member. The court鈥檚 ruling blocks ED鈥檚 unprecedented and unlawful attempt to restrict discussions and programs on diversity, equity, and inclusion in educational institutions, and its threat to withhold federal funding for engaging in such efforts. The Dear Colleague Letter鈥檚 directive contradicts long-standing legal protections for academic freedom and violates the constitutional rights of students and educators by imposing vague and coercive restrictions on curriculums and programs. The preliminary injunction prevents ED from enforcing the directive while litigation continues, ensuring that schools can continue their educational mission without fear of federal retaliation. 鈥淎cross the country educators do everything in their power to support every student, ensuring each feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future. Today鈥檚 ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what鈥檚 best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment. The fact is that Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Linda McMahon are using politically motivated attacks and harmful and vague directives to stifle speech and erase critical lessons to attack public education, as they work to dismantle public schools. This is why educators, parents, and community leaders are organizing, mobilizing, and using every tool available to protect our students and their futures,鈥� said National Education Association President Becky Pringle. 鈥淲hile this interim agreement does not confirm the Department's motives, we believe it should mark the beginning of a permanent withdrawal from the assault on teaching and learning. The Department鈥檚 attempt to punish schools for acknowledging diversity, equity and inclusion is not only unconstitutional, but it鈥檚 also extremely dangerous -- and functions as a direct misalignment with what we know to be just and future forward. Today鈥檚 decision is a critical step toward protecting the freedom to teach, and the freedom to learn,鈥� said Sharif El-Mekki, Center for Black Educator Development CEO & founder. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling is a victory for students, educators, and the fundamental principles of academic freedom. Every student deserves an education that reflects the full diversity of our society, free from political interference,鈥� said Sarah Hinger, deputy director of the 吃瓜直播 Racial Justice Program. 鈥淭he federal government has no authority to dictate what schools can and cannot teach to serve its own agenda, and this ruling is an important step in reaffirming that.鈥� Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the 吃瓜直播 of New Hampshire, said, 鈥淭he court's ruling today is a victory for academic freedom, the free speech rights of educators, and for New Hampshire students who have a right to an inclusive education free from censorship. Every student, both in the Granite State and across the country, deserves to feel seen, heard, and connected in school - and that can't happen when classroom censorship laws and policies are allowed to stand." On March 5, the 吃瓜直播, the 吃瓜直播 of New Hampshire, the 吃瓜直播 of Massachusetts, the National Education Association (NEA), and the National Education Association鈥揘ew Hampshire, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New Hampshire, against ED. Also joining the case as plaintiff is the Center for Black Educator Development. Plaintiffs represented in the lawsuit against ED have said they鈥檝e felt like the 鈥淒ear Colleague Letter鈥� instigated a 鈥渨itch hunt鈥� against them. Teachers who have dedicated their lives to helping every student grow to their full potential have been in fear of losing their jobs and teaching licenses if they do not severely restrict what they and their students say and do in their classrooms. The lawsuit challenges ED鈥檚 directive on multiple legal grounds. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that ED has overstepped its authority by imposing unfounded and vague legal restrictions that violate due process and the First Amendment; limiting academic freedom and restricting educators鈥� ability to teach and students鈥� right to learn; and unlawfully dictating curriculum and educational programs, exceeding its legal mandate. The case will now proceed as the court considers whether to permanently block the Department鈥檚 directive. The court鈥檚 decision can be found here. A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.