Roldan v. Los Angeles County

Last updated

Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal. App. 267 , 18 P.2d 706, was a 1930s court case in California confirming that the state's anti-miscegenation laws at the time did not bar the marriage of a Filipino and a white person. [1] However, the precedent lasted barely a week before the law was specifically amended to illegalize such marriages. [2]

Contents

Background

The case involved a Filipino American man, Salvador Roldan, engaged to a white British woman, Marjorie Rogers. [3] Roldan was an Ilocano from northern Luzon. [4] Since 1880, California Civil Code Section 60 had prohibited marriages between white persons and "negros", "mulattos", or "Mongolians", but there was confusion over whether Filipinos were part of that last category. [5] [6] California Attorney General Ulysses S. Webb had issued an advisory opinion in 1926 that Filipinos were part of the "Mongolian race". [7] In 1930, a court had denied another Filipino man, Tony Moreno, permission to marry his white fiancée and ruled that Filipinos and other "Malayans" were part of the "Mongolian race" and thus not eligible to marry whites. [8]

However, the following year, Judge Walter Guerin granted a marriage licence for Gavino Visco to marry Ruth M. Salas. The groom was a Filipino of Spanish ancestry, while the bride was an indigenous Mexican; however, Guerin stated that he would have granted the licence even if the bride were white. [7] In August 1931, Roldan and Rogers's application for a marriage licence was rejected by the Los Angeles County clerk. The couple petitioned for a writ of mandate with the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Judge Walter Gates granted the writ. [5]

Appeals

County counsels L. E. Lampton and Everett Mattoon appealed Gates' decision to the California Court of Appeal for the Second District. Webb, as well as Associate Attorney General Frank English, filed amici briefs on behalf of Lampton and Mattoon. [5] While the case was being heard, other counties in California continued to refuse to issue marriage licences to Filipino-white couples. [9] The appellate court's decision hinged on examination of the theories of racial anthropology current in the late 19th century when the law was drafted, in an effort to discern the legislative intent. County officials cited the work of Aleš Hrdlička in arguing that Filipinos were indeed part of the "Mongolian race". However, Justice T. Archbald, who wrote the opinion in the case, disagreed, stating that J. F. Blumenbach's taxonomy, which classified "Malays" and "Mongolians" separately, was the dominant theory through the early 20th century. [5] He also pointed out that the term "Mongolians" in popular opinion was meant principally to apply to the Chinese, in reaction to the late 19th century influx of Chinese immigrants. [9] The court thus concluded that Filipinos were members of the "Malay race" and not the "Mongoloid race", finding Roldan and Rogers' marriage legal. [6]

County officials appealed the case again to the Supreme Court of California in 1933. [6] On March 27, 1933, the Supreme Court announced that it would not review the case, effectively upholding the appellate court's decision. [9] Soon after that announcement, the California State Legislature voted to amend Civil Code Section 60 to ensure that the law against interracial marriage also covered "members of the Malay race". [10] California Governor James Rolph signed the amendment into law on April 5, 1933. [2]

Notes

  1. ↑ Moran 2003 , p.  206
  2. 1 2 Baldoz 2011 , p.  101
  3. ↑ Baldoz 2011 , p.  98
  4. ↑ Gross 2008 , p.  250
  5. 1 2 3 4 Baldoz 2011 , p.  99
  6. 1 2 3 Min 2006 , p.  189
  7. 1 2 Gross 2008 , p.  249
  8. ↑ "Filipino-White Unions Barred; Judge Rules Malayans Part of Mongolian Race; Change in Opinion on Brown People Cited in Court Decision; May Affect Hundred Couples Already Wed", Los Angeles Times, February 26, 1930, archived from the original on July 12, 2012, retrieved October 1, 2011
  9. 1 2 3 Baldoz 2011 , p.  100
  10. ↑ Tragen 1944, citing Cal. Stats. 1933, p. 561.

Bibliography

Related Research Articles

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a dispute of whether preferential treatment for minorities could reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were impermissible.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Beginning in 2013, the decision was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions ruling that restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States were unconstitutional, including in the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of California</span> Highest judicial court in the U.S. state of California

The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts. Since 1850, the court has issued many influential decisions in a variety of areas including torts, property, civil and constitutional rights, and criminal law.

Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the exclusion on account of race of a child of Chinese ancestry from a public school did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision effectively approved the exclusion of any minority children from schools reserved for whites.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1964 California Proposition 14</span> Referendum on housing discrimination

California Proposition 14 was a November 1964 initiative ballot measure that amended the California state constitution to nullify the 1963 Rumford Fair Housing Act, thereby allowing property sellers, landlords and their agents to openly discriminate on ethnic grounds when selling or letting accommodations, as they had been permitted to before 1963. The proposition became law after receiving support from 65% of voters. In 1966, the California Supreme Court in a 5–2 split decision declared Proposition 14 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey.

Perez v. Sharp, also known as Perez v. Lippold or Perez v. Moroney, is a 1948 case decided by the Supreme Court of California in which the court held by a 4–3 majority that the state's ban on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Malay race</span> Concept of a Malay race

The concept of a Malay race was originally proposed by the German physician Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840), and classified as a brown race. Malay is a loose term used in the late 19th century and early 20th century to describe the Austronesian peoples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of California</span>

The law of California consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law. The California Codes form the general statutory law, and most state agency regulations are available in the California Code of Regulations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mildred and Richard Loving</span> Plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia

Mildred Delores Loving and Richard Perry Loving were an American married couple who were the plaintiffs in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia (1967). Their marriage has been the subject of three movies, including the 2016 drama Loving, and several songs. The Lovings were criminally charged with interracial marriage under a Virginia statute banning such marriages, and were forced to leave the state to avoid being jailed. They moved to Washington, D.C., but wanted to return to their home town. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), they filed suit to overturn the law. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, striking down the Virginia statute and all state anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional, for violating due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment. On June 29, 1975, a drunk driver struck the Lovings' car in Caroline County, Virginia. Richard was killed in the crash, at the age of 41. Mildred lost her right eye.

In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interracial marriage in the United States</span>

Interracial marriage has been legal throughout the United States since at least the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia (1967) that held that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the court opinion that "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State." Interracial marriages have been formally protected by federal statute through the Respect for Marriage Act since 2022.

Anti-miscegenation laws are laws that enforce racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes, they also criminalize sex between members of different races.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marshall F. McComb</span> American judge (1894–1981)

Marshall Francis McComb was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of California from January 1956 to May 2, 1977.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States</span> Laws against interracial marriage

In the United States, many U.S. states historically had anti-miscegenation laws which prohibited interracial marriage and, in some states, interracial sexual relations. Some of these laws predated the establishment of the United States, and some dated to the later 17th or early 18th century, a century or more after the complete racialization of slavery. Nine states never enacted anti-miscegenation laws, and 25 states had repealed their laws by 1967. In that year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that such laws are unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Filipino Americans</span> Overview of the history of Filipino Americans

The history of Filipino Americans begins in the 16th century when Filipinos first arrived in what is now the United States. The first Filipinos came to what is now the United States due to the Philippines being part of New Spain. Until the 19th century, the Philippines continued to be geographically isolated from the rest of New Spain in the Americas but maintained regular communication across the Pacific Ocean via the Manila galleon. Filipino seamen in the Americas settled in Louisiana, and Alta California, beginning in the 18th century. By the 19th century, Filipinos were living in the United States, fighting in the Battle of New Orleans and the American Civil War, with the first Filipino becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States before its end. In the final years of the 19th century, the United States went to war with Spain, ultimately annexing the Philippine Islands from Spain. Due to this, the history of the Philippines merged with that of the United States, beginning with the three-year-long Philippine–American War (1899–1902), which resulted in the defeat of the First Philippine Republic, and the attempted Americanization of the Philippines.

The Watsonville riots was a period of racial violence that took place in Watsonville, California, from January 19 to 23, 1930. Involving violent assaults on Filipino American farm workers by local white residents opposed to immigration, the riots highlighted the racial and socioeconomic tensions in California's agricultural communities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John W. Shenk</span> American judge

John Wesley Shenk was a city attorney in Los Angeles, California, a Superior Court judge and a member of the California Supreme Court.

Benjamin Rey Schauer was an American attorney and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California from December 18, 1942, to September 15, 1965.

Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 4 Cal. 5th 607, 413 P.3d 656 (2018), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that universities owe a duty to protect students from foreseeable violence during curricular activities. In an opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan, the Court reinstated the 2010 case in which Katherine Rosen, a former UCLA student, sued the university for negligence when another student stabbed her in a chemistry lab. Following this ruling, Rosen can continue to pursue the case in court.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.