Cooper v. Aaron
Headline: Court unanimously affirmed that Arkansas officials must obey Brown desegregation orders, rejecting state-sponsored delays and restoring the Little Rock school board’s desegregation plan so Black students may attend.
Holding:
- Forces Arkansas officials to obey federal desegregation orders immediately.
- Reinstates Little Rock high school integration plan and allows students to attend.
- Clarifies that state laws cannot be used to block constitutional school desegregation.
Summary
Background
The dispute involved the Little Rock school board and superintendent who had a court-approved plan to end segregated schools in stages and nine Black children scheduled to attend Central High School. The Governor and state legislature adopted laws and actions opposing desegregation, and the Governor sent the Arkansas National Guard to keep the students out. After a year of disturbance the local District Court allowed the school board to postpone desegregation for two and one-half years. The Court of Appeals reversed that postponement and the Supreme Court then agreed to decide quickly before the next school year.
Reasoning
The main question was whether state officials could ignore or delay federal court orders enforcing the Constitution as explained in Brown v. Board of Education. The Court said they could not. It emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment and Article VI make the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution binding on state legislators, governors, and other state officers. State laws, official orders, or force that obstruct constitutional school desegregation cannot justify denying children their rights. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, reinstated the earlier decrees enforcing the board’s plan, and made its judgment effective immediately.
Real world impact
The decision required Arkansas officials to stop using state power to block integration and allowed the approved Central High plan to go forward. It reaffirmed that lower-level officials cannot use local hostility, state laws, or military force to nullify federally protected school rights. Because the ruling reaffirms Brown, the basic rule against state-imposed school segregation remains binding.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Frankfurter concurred, stressing the value of local efforts to gain public acceptance but condemning the State’s use of force to thwart constitutional duties, warning that law must not yield to violence.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?