Palmore v. Sidoti
Significance, Interracial Adoption
Linda Sidoti Palmore
Anthony J. Sidoti
Depriving a parent of custody because the parent is involved with someone of another race violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Robert J. Shapiro
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
John E. Hawtrey
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
25 April 1984
Using race as a factor in awarding child custody violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).
- Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
Lewin, Tamar. "New Families Redraw Racial Boundaries." The New York Times. 27 October 1998.
- Barbash, Fred. "Supreme Court, 9-0, Bars Race from Rulings on Child Custody." The Washington Post, April 26, 1984, p. A3.
- Forde-Mazrui, Kim. "Black Identity and Child Placement: The Best Interests of Black Biracial Children." Michigan Law Review, February 1994, p. 925.
- Goldstein, Joseph, et al. The Best Interests of the Child. New York: The Free Press, 1996.
- Patterson v. McLean Credit Union - Significance, Court Reconsiders Whether Section 1981 Prohibits Any Private Discrimination, Patterson Overturned, Civil Rights Act Of 1991
- Pacific Gas Electric Co. v. Energy Resources Commission - "swords Into Plowshares", Pacific Gas Takes On The Energy Commission, An Economic Issue, Not A Safety Issue
- Palmore v. Sidoti - Significance
- Palmore v. Sidoti - Interracial Adoption
- Other Free Encyclopedias