In Drews et al. v. Maryland (1963), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a case involving the violation of constitutional rights due to racial discrimination in public accommodations. The appellants, African-American citizens of Baltimore, were denied service at a privately-owned amusement park on account of their race and filed suit against the State of Maryland for failing to provide equal protection under its laws as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued that since state courts had upheld trespass convictions against African-Americans who entered establishments from which they were barred because of their race, this amounted to state enforcement of racial segregation in public places. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants stating that when a State enforces such discriminatory practices through its criminal trespass law or any other means, it violates Equal Protection Clause provided by Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was significant as it reinforced federal commitment towards ending racially discriminatory practices across all states.

In the dissenting opinion for Drews et al. v. Maryland, Justice Goldberg argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law banning interracial marriage was fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with constitutional principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that such laws were inherently discriminatory and served no legitimate public interest or social purpose other than to perpetuate racial prejudice and inequality. Furthermore, he asserted that these laws violated individuals' fundamental right to marry whom they choose without undue governmental interference or restriction based on race. In his view, any law which restricts this basic human right solely because of racial considerations is arbitrary, unreasonable, and in direct conflict with our nation’s commitment to equality before the law for all citizens regardless of their race or color.