In the 1983 case of Palmore v. Sidoti, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a parent's interracial marriage could not be used as justification for denying them custody of their child. The case involved Linda Sidoti Palmore, who had lost custody of her daughter to her ex-husband Anthony J. Sidoti after she married an African-American man in Florida during the late 1970s. The lower court had determined that it was in the best interest of the child to live with Mr. Sidoti due to potential social stigmatization from Mrs.Palmore's interracial marriage. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned this decision, stating that while societal prejudice and racism were unfortunate realities, they should not influence legal decisions or infringe upon individual rights protected by law under Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment . Justice Byron White wrote for majority opinion: "Private biases may be outside the reach of law but state action cannot constitutionally foster such prejudices." This ruling reinforced principle against racial discrimination in family-law cases.

In the dissenting opinion for Palmore v. Sidoti, Justice Rehnquist argued that while racial prejudice should not influence court decisions, it is also important to consider the potential harm and social stigma a child might face in an interracial family setting due to societal prejudices. He contended that courts must balance constitutional principles against practical concerns about a child's welfare when making custody determinations. While acknowledging that this approach may indirectly give credence to racial bias, he maintained it was necessary given the realities of racism in society at large. Thus, he disagreed with the majority's view which held any consideration of race as unconstitutional in such cases.