There is no concurring opinion in Loving v. Virginia. The court opinion was unanimous.
You can take a look at the opinions at the link below.Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinionJustice Alito wrote a concurring opinion in which Justice Kennedy joinedJustice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Souter and Ginsberg joinedJustice Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part
The Loving Decision (Loving v Virginia).
In Roe v. Wade, the concurring opinion, primarily authored by Justice Potter Stewart, agreed with the majority that the right to privacy encompassed a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. Stewart emphasized the importance of individual liberty and the need for the government to avoid unnecessary intrusion into personal choices. He supported the framework established by the majority opinion, which balanced a woman's right to choose against the state's interests in regulating abortions. The concurring opinion reinforced the notion that the decision should ultimately rest with the individual rather than the state.
in June 12, 1967
Loving v. Virginia is a Supreme Court case that found the Virginia statute prohibiting interracial marriages to be unconstitutional.
Loving v. Virginia
Interracial marriages. The US Supreme Court declared these laws unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. *The opinion comments previously here have been moved to the discussion section.
In the state of Virginia it was illegal for people of different races to marry. Loving and Virginia married even though they were an interracial couple. They faced many legal and social problems in Virginia because of this.
What was the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia
maxwell got ten years in prison for not giving sheppard a fair trial
The full case name of Loving v. Virginia is "Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving v. Virginia." The case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 and addressed the constitutionality of laws banning interracial marriage. The Court ruled that such laws violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. This landmark decision effectively invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage across the United States.
There was no dissenting opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden,which received a unanimous vote of 6-0*; however, Justice William Johnson wrote a concurring opinion in order to present points not specifically covered in Marshall's writing.Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)For more information, see Related Questions, below.