| Naim v. Naim | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
| Full case name | Han Say Naim v. Ruby Elaine Naim. |
| Decided | June 13, 1955 (1955-06-13) |
| Citations | 197 Va. 80; 87 S.E.2d 749 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Edward W. Hudgins,John W. Eggleston,Claude V. Spratley,Archibald C. Buchanan,Willis D. Miller,Lemuel F. Smith,Kennon Caithness Whittle |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Buchanan, joined byunanimous |
| Keywords | |
Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80; 87 S.E.2d 749 (1955), is a case regarding interracial marriage. The case was decided by theSupreme Court of Virginia on June 13, 1955. The Court held the marriage between the appellant (Han Say Naim) and theappellee (Ruby Elaine Naim) to be void under theCode of Virginia (1950).
The appellee, a white woman living in Virginia, and the appellant, a Chinese man living outside of Virginia, went to North Carolina to be married on June 26, 1952, specifically because there was a Virginia statute, theRacial Integrity Act of 1924, banning interracial marriage, while North Carolina law banned marriages between whites and blacks but not between whites and Asians.[1] They then returned to Virginia, where they lived as husband and wife.
A year after the marriage, Ruby Naim filed forannulment, as the marriage was in contravention of Virginia's miscegenation laws, with Han Say Naim arguing that a marriage valid in North Carolina was valid throughout the United States. Thecircuit court of thecity of Portsmouth granted an annulment, but Han Say Naim appealed to the state supreme court, which upheld the circuit court's decision.[2]
The Virginia statute stated:
Han Say Naim's attorney,David Carliner, attempted to appeal the state's decision to theSupreme Court of the United States, with the backing of theAmerican Jewish Congress, theJapanese American Citizens League, theAssociation on American Indian Affairs and the Association of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers.[4] The justices, however, refused to consider the appeal, fearing that to do so would further encourage opposition to the enforcement ofBrown v. Board of Education.[5] JusticeTom C. Clark reportedly said, "one bombshell at a time is enough."[6]