A jury trial resulted in a verdict of guilty, a sentence of thirty days in the county jail, and a fine of $150 (equivalent to $1,510 in 2023) for each defendant.

[5] Justice White in his majority opinion held that the law, as it made a special case for couples of these two specific races, bore a "heavier burden of justification".

That a general evil will be partially corrected may at times, and without more, serve to justify the limited application of a criminal law; but legislative discretion to employ the piecemeal approach stops short of permitting a State to narrow statutory coverage to focus on a racial group.Justice Harlan, in his concurrence, emphasized the "heavier burden" requirement that White described and wrote that the law should pass a "necessity test", which is very stringent and applied to free speech cases.

Justices Stewart and Douglas joined in an even stronger concurrence and denied even the possibility of an "overriding statutory purpose" that would justify such a law.

And I think it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor.