6. This excerpt desoribes olroumetences that ted to the 1967 Buprome Court oase Loving v In June, 1968, two residents of Virginis, Miliked Jeter, is Negro women.and ficherd Loving, a white man were married in the District of Columbie pursuant to its lows. Shortly after their morninge the Lovings returned to Virginis and established their marital abode in Caroline County, At the October Torm, 1968, of the Cirouit Court of Caroline County, a grand Jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginie's ben on interracial marilages. On January 6,1959, the Lovings pleaded gully to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovinge leave the Btate and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. Legal Information Institute www.law.cornell.edu (accessed May 9,2019) y did the U.8 Bupreme Court unanimously rule that Virginia's interracial marriage was unconstitutional? The ben violated the principle of federalism described I in the Teeth Amendment B found in the fourteen N Amendment The bon violeted the would protection and clus process children The ben violeted the right to is jury trial in the fixth Amendment The ben violated the right to free exercise of religion in the First Amendment

## Step 1<br />The problem is asking us to identify the reason why the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Virginia's ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. The options provided are:<br />A. The ban violated the principle of federalism described in the Tenth Amendment.<br />B. The ban violated the equal protection and due process clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment.<br />C. The ban violated the right to a jury trial in the Fifth Amendment.<br />D. The ban violated the right to free exercise of religion in the First Amendment.<br /><br />## Step 2<br />The case in question is Loving v. Virginia, which was a landmark civil rights case in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws, which banned interracial marriages, were unconstitutional.<br /><br />## Step 3<br />The Supreme Court's decision was based on the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, while the Due Process Clause prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.<br /><br />## Step 4<br />In this case, the Supreme Court found that Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The laws were not applied equally to all persons, as they specifically targeted interracial couples, and they deprived individuals of their right to marry the person of their choice.