Trying to navigate the following below:

Facts: present only the facts are essential to the court decision

Issues: (1) what questions of law has the court identified as issues to be decided in the case before it?

Issues: (2) Does the case before the court also involve underlying issues of public policy or constitutional interpretation

Rules of Law: The files of cases and statutory law that the court identifies in its opinion as integral to the decision-making process.

Conclusion: what is the holding of the court

1. Rule of Law of the case
2. Disposition of the case

AutoSave OFF wa Cooper vs. Anderson - Saved to my Mac Q Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat ? Tell me Share Comments Calibri (Bo... v 12 AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDc AaBbCc AaBbCcDc Paste BI Uvab X x|A DAY Norma No Spacing Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request Pane Adobe PDF Signatures x Office Update To keep up-to-date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates 358 U.S. 1 (1958) COOPER ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. AARON ET AL. No. 1. Supreme Court of United States. Argued September 11, 1958. Decided September 12, 1958. Opinion announced September 29, 1958. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.[1 3*3 Richard C. Butler argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were A. F. House and, by special leave of Court, John H. Haley, pro hac vice. Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Wiley A. Branton, William Coleman, Jr., Jack Greenberg and Louis H. Pollak. Solicitor General Rankin, at the invitation of the Court, post, p. 27, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging that the relief sought by respondents should be granted. With him on the brief were Oscar H. Davis, Philip Elman and Ralph S. Spritzer. 4*4 Opinion of the Court by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BURTON, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER. As this case reaches us it raises questions of the highest importance to the maintenance of our ederal system of government. It necessarily involves a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution. Specifically it involves actions by the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas upon the premise that they are not bound by our holding in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. That holding was that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids States to use their governmental powers to bar children on racial grounds from attending schools where there is state participation through any arrangement, management, funds or property. We are urged to uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board's plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify our holding in Brown v. Board of Education have been further challenged and tested in the courts. We reject these contentions. Page 1 of 13 8409 words English (United States) Focus E + 120%AutoSave Cooper vs. Anders Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat 9 Tell me '35hare Geomments [an v A Calibri(Bo... v 12 v A\" AV Aav A) \"399$ BIgvabxzx2 Av/VAV N V AaBchDdEe AaEchDdEe AaBchDt AaBch Achl)' ,Q L! " [E 8m 1;, 0t, Normal No Spacing Heading1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request , Pane Adobe PDF Signatures 0 Ofce Update To keep up~to~date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates The case was argued before us on September 11, 1958. On the following day we unanimously afrmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 257 F. 2d 33, which had reversed a judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 163 F. Supp. 13. The District Court had granted the application of the petitioners, the Little Rock School Board and School Superintendent, to suspend fortwo and one~half years the operation of the School Board's court- approved desegregation program. In order that the School Board 5'5 might know, without doubt, its duty in this regard before the opening of school. which had been set for the following Monday, September 15, 1958, we immediately issued the judgment, reserving the expression of our supporting views to a later date]:l This opinion of all of the members of the Court embodies those views. The following are the facts and circumstances so far as necessary to show how the legal questions are presented. On May 17, 1954, this Court decided that enforced racial segregation in the public schools of a State is a denial of the equal protection of the laws enjoined by the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education 6'6 347 U. S. 483. The Court postponed, pending further argument, formulation of a decree to effectuate this decision. That decree was rendered May 31, 1955. Brown v. Board of Education 349 U. S, 294. In the formulation of that decree the Court recognized that good faith compliance with the principles declared in Brown might in some situations "call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated in accordance with the constitutional principles set forth in our May 17, 1954, decision." Id, at 300. The Court went on to state: \"Courts of equity may properly take into account the public interest in the elimination of such obsmoles in a systematic and effective manner. But it should go without saying that the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them. "While giving weight to these public and private considerations, the courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling. Once such a start has been made. the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an eflective manner. The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to administration. arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, Page 1 of 13 8409 words III English (United States) Focus n 1250 _ \\. + 120% AutoSave Cooper vs. Anderson Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat 9 Tell me @Share Ecomments '12\" v )t Calibri(Bo... v 12 v A\" AV Aav A) :_ v ;: AaBchDdEe AaEchDdEe AaBchDr AaBch Nbcw' ) Q L! V [3] 24\" Paste 2 j A t5 Normal No Spacing Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request 6 B I g ' ab X1 x A V V V ' V g / Pane Adobe PDF Signatures 0 Ofce Update To keep upto-date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems." 349 U. S. at 300-301, 7'7 Under such drcumstances, the District Courts were directed to require \"a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance," and to take such action as was necessary to bring about the end of racial segregation in the public schools "with all deliberate speed," (bid. Of course, in many locations, obedience to the duty of desegregation would require the immediate general admission of Negro children, otherwise qualied as students for their appropriate classes, at particular schools. 0n the other hand, a District Court, after analysis of the relevant factors (which, of course, excludes hostility to racial desegregation), might conclude thatjustication existed for not requiring the present nonsegregated admission of all qualied Negro children. In such circumstances, however, the courts should scmtinize the program of the school authorities to make sure that they had developed arrangements pointed toward the eaiest practicable completion of W had taken appropriate steps to out their program into eective operation. It was made plain that delay in any guise in order to deny the constitutional rights of Negro children could not be countenanced, and that only a prompt start, diligently and earnestly pursued, to eliminate racial segregation from the public schools could constitute good faith compliance. State authoriti were thus duty bound to devote every effort toward initiating desegregation and bringing about the elimination of racial discrimination in the m system. On May 20, 1954, three days after the rst Brown opinion, the Little Rock District School Board adopted, and on May 23, 1954, made public. a statement of policy entitled "Supreme Court DecisionSegregation in Public Schools." In this statement the Board recognized that "It is our responsibility to comply with Federal Constitutional Requirements and we intend to do so when the Supreme Court of the United States outlines the method to be followed," 8'8 Thereafter the Board undertook studies of the administrative problems confronting the transition to a desegregated public school system at Little Rock. It instructed the Superintendent of Schools to prepare a plan for desegregation, and approved such a plan on May 24, 1955, seven days before the second Brown opinion. The plan provided for desegregation at the senior high school level (grades 10 through 12) as the rst stage. Desegregation at thejunior high and elementary levels MIMWWMHM Page 2 of 13 3409 words II/ English (United States) Focus n Fig _ v + 120% AutoSave Cooper vs. Anderson Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat 9 Tell me '3 Share E Comments [on v A Calibri (BO-u V 12 V A\" AV A3 " A0 3 AaBchDdEe AaEchDdEe AaBchDr AaBch AaBchm Q g!) " [ET 8 [E] > , _J D m Paste 6 B I g ,, ab X; x2 A ,, I ,, A v Normal No Spacing Heading1 Headingz Headings [$325 Dictate Creiggigpare giggles; 9 Ofce Update To keep up~to~date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. was to follow. Itwas contemplated that desegregation at the high school level would commence in the fall of 1957, and the expectation was that complete desegregation of the school system would be accomplished by 1963. Following the adoption of this plan, the Superintendent of Schools discussed it with a large number of citizen groups in the city. As a result of these discussions, the Board reached the conclusion that "a large majority of the residents\" of Little Rock were of \"the belief . . . that the Plan, although objectionable in principle," from the point of view of those supporting segregated schools, "was still the best for the interests of all pupils in the District." Upon challenge by a group of Negro plaintiffs desiring more rapid completion of the desegregation process, the District Court upheld the School Board's plan, Aaron v. Cooper 143 F. Supp. 855. The Court of Appeals afrmed. 243 F. 2d 361. Review of thatjudgment was not sought here. While the School Board was thus going forward with its preparation for desegregating the Little Rock school system, other state authorities, in contrast, were actively pursuing a program designed to perpetuate in Arkansas the system of racial segregation which this Court had held violated the Fourteenth Amendment, First came, in November 1956, an amendment to the State Constitution atly commanding the Arkansas General Assembly to oppose "in every Constitutional manner the Un-constitutional 9'9 desegregation decisions of May 17, 1954 and May 31, 1955 of the United States Supreme Court,\" Ark, Const., Amend. 44, and, through the initiative, a pupil assignment law, Ark. Stat. 80-1519 to 80-1524. Pursuant to this state constitutional command, a law relieving school children from compulsory attendance at racially mixed schools, Ark. Stat. 80-1525, and a law wablishing a State Sovereignty Commission, Ark. Stat. 6801 to 6824, were enacted by the General Assembly in February 1957. The School Board and the Superintendent of Schools nevertheless continued with preparations to carry out the rst stage of the desegregation program. Nine Negro children were scheduled for admission in September 1957 to Central High School, which has more than two thousand students Various administrative measures, designed to assure the smooth transition of this rst stage of desegregation, were undertaken, On September 2, 1957, the day before these Negro students were to enter Central High, the school authorities were met with drastic opposing action on the part of the Govemor of Arkansas who dispatched units of the Arkansas National Guard to the Central High School grounds and placed the school "off limits" to colored students. As found by the District Court in subsequent proceedings, the Govemor's action had not been requested by the school Wwas entirely unheralded. The ndings were these: "Up to this time [September 2], no crowds had gathered about Central High School and no acts of violence or threats of violence in connection with the carrying out of the plan had occurred. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the school authorities had frequently conferred with the Mayor and Chief of Police of Little Rock about taking appropriate 10'10 steps by the Little Rock police to prevent any possible disturbances or acts of violence in connection with the attendance of the 9 colored students at Central High School. The Mayor considered that the Littte Rock police force could adequately cope with any incidents which might arise at the opening of school. The _ \\. + 120% Page 3 of 13 3409 words II/ English (United States) Focus E E0 AutoSave Cooper vs. Anders Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat 9 Tell me '3 Share E Comments A . . A V ' 8 [on V [E1 cahb" (B--' V 12 " A A A3 " A0 AaBchDdEe AaEchDdEe AaBbCCDt AaBch AaBchm ). A L!J " [E] m Paste Z I A Normal No spacing Heading1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request 6 B I g v ab X1 x A v v v , g / Pane Adobe PDF Signatures Mayor. the Chief of Police, and the school authorities made no request to the Governor or any representative of his Massistance in maintaining peace and order at Central High School. Neither the Govemor nor any other ofcial of the State government consulted with the Little Rock authorities about whether the Little Rock police were prepared to cope with any incidents which might arise at the school, about any need for State assistance in maintaining peace and order, or about stationing the Arkansas National Guard at Central High School." Aaron v. Co_oger 156 F. Supp. 220 225. The Board's petition for postponement in this proceeding states: "The effect of that action [of the Governor] was to harden the core of opposition to the Plan and cause many persons who theretofore had reluctantly accepted the Plan to believe there was some power in the State of Arkansas which, when exerted, could nullify the Federal law and permit disobedience of the decree of this [District] Court, and from that date hostility to the Plan was increased and criticism of the ofcials ofthe [School] District has become more bitter and unrestrained." The Governor's action caused the School Board to request the Negro students on September 2 not to attend the high school "until the legal dilemma was solved." The next day, September 3, 1957, the Board petitioned the District Court for instructions, and the court, after a hearing, found that the Board's 11'11 request of the Negro students to stay away from the high school had been made because of the stationing of the military guards by the state authorities. The court determined that this was not a reason for departing from the approved owered the School Board and Superintendent to proceed with it. On the morning of the next day, September 4. 1957, the Negro children attempted to enter the high school but, as the District Court later found, units of the Arkansas National Guard "acting pursuant to the Governor's order, stood shoulder to shoulder at the school grounds and thereby forcibly prevented the 9 Negro students . . . from entering," as they continued to do every school day during the following three weeks. 156 F. Supp. at 225. That same day, September 4, 1957. the United States Attomey for the Eastern District of Arkansas was requested by the District Court to begin an immediate investigation in order to x responsibility for the interference with the orderly implementation of the District Court's direction to carry out the desegregation program. Three days later, September 7, the District Court denied a petition of the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools for an order temporarily suspending continuance of the program. Upon completion of the United States AttomeYs investigation, he and the Attorney General of the United States, at the District Court's request, entered the proceedings and led a petition on behalf of the United States. as amicus curiae, to enjoin the Governor of Arkansas and ofcers of the Arkansas National Guard from further attempts to prevent obedience to the court's order. After hearings on the petition, the District Court found that the School Board's plan had been obstnrcted by the Governor through the use of National Guard troops, and granted a preliminary injunction on September 1212 20, 1957, enjoining the Govemcr and the ofcers of the Guard from preventing the attendance of Negro children at Central High School, and from cthenrvise obstructing or interfering with the orders of the court in connection with the plan. 156 F. Supp. 220 afnned. Faubus v. United States 254 F. 2d 797. The National Guard was then withdrawn from the school. The next school day was Monday, September 23, 1957. The Negro children entered the high school that moming under the protection of the Little Rock Police Department and members of the Arkansas State Police. But the ofcers caused the children to be removed from the school during the morning because they had difculty controlling a large and demonstrating crowd which had gathered Page 4 of 13 3409 words U? English (United States) Focus n i250 _ \\. + 120% AutoSave Cooper vs. Anders Home Insert Draw References Mailings Review View Acrobat 9 Tell me V28 Fr Design Layout Calibri(Bo... v 12 v A\" AV Aav A) No spacing Heading 1 BIgvabxzx2 at the high schoolf'163 F. Supp, at 16. Chi-September 25, haste, the-President- of-the United States dispatched federal troops to Central High School and admission of the Negro students to the Heading 2 13 Share D Comments AaBchDdEe AaEchDdEe AaBchDr AaBch AaBchDt )Q L! V [E] All Styles Dictate Create and Share Request / Pane Adobe PDF Signatures Heading 3 school was thereby emed. Regular army troops continued at the high school until November 27, 1957. They were then replaced by federalized National Guardsmen who remained throughout the balance of me school year. Eight of the Negro students remained in attendance at the school throughout the school year. We come now to the aspect of the proceedings presently before us. On February 20, 1958, the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools led a petition in the District Court seeking a postponement of their program for desegregation. Their position in essence was that because of extreme public hostility. which they stated had been engendered largely by the ofcial attitudes and actions of the Governor and the Legislature, the maintenance of a sound educational program at Central High School, with the Negro students in attendance, would be impossible. The Board therefore proposed that the Negro students already admitted to the school be withdrawn 13'13 and sent to segregated schools, and that all further steps to carry out the Board's desegregation program be postponed for a period later suggested by the Board to be two and one-half years. Aer a hearing the District Court granted the relief requested by the Board. Among other things the court found that the past year at Central High School had been attended by conditions of \"chaos, bedlam and turmoil"; that there were "repeated incidents of more or less serious violence directed against the Negro students and their property\"; that there was "tension and unrest among the school administrators, the class-room teachers, the pupils. and the latters' parents, which inevitably had an adverse effect upon the educational program"; that a school ofcial was threatened with violence; that a "serious nancial burden" had been cast on the School District; that the education of the students had suffered "and under existing conditions will continue to suffer'; that the Board would continue to need "military assistance or its equivalent"; that the local police department would not be able "to detail enough men to afford the necessary protection"; and that the situation was "intolerable." 163 F. Supp.. at 20-26. The District Court's judgment was dated June 20. 1958. The Negro respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and also sought there a stay of the District Court's judgment. At the same m they led a petition for oertiorari in this Court asking us to review the District Court's judgment without awaiting the disposition of their appeal to the Court of Appeals, or of their petition to that court for a stay. That we declined to do. 357 U. S. 566. The Court of Appeals did not act on the petition for a stay, but, on August 18, 1958, after convening in special session on August 4 and hearing the appeal, reversed the District Court, 257 F. 2d 33. On August 21, 1958, the Court of A . , . i n . . , c E . , Page 4 of 13 3409 words U? English (United States) Focus n Iago _ \\. + 120% Cooper vs. Anderson 9 Tell me AaBchDdEe Normal No Spacing Heading 1 One may well sympathize with the position of the Board in the face of the frustrating conditions which have confronted it, but, regardless of the Board's good faith. the actions of the other state agencies responsible for those conditions compel us to reject the Board's legal position. Had Central High School been under the direct management of the State itself, it could hardly be suggested 16*16 that those immediately in charge of the school should be heard to assert their own good faith as a legal excuse for delay in implementing the constitutional rights of these respondents. when vindication of those rights was rendered difcult or impossible by the actions of other state ofcials. The situation here is in no different posture because the members of the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools are local ofcials: from the point of view of the Fourteenth Amendment, they stand in this litigation as the agents of the State. The constitutional rights of respondents are not to be sacriced or yielded to the violence and disorder which have followed upon the actions of the Governor and Legislature, As this Court said some 41 years ago in a unanimous opinion in a case involving another aspect of racial segregation: "It is urged that this proposed segregation will promote the public peace by preventing race conicts. Desirable as this is, and important as is the preservation of the public peace. this aim cannot be accomplished by laws or ordinances which deny rights created or protected by the Federal Constitution." Buchanan v. Way, 245 U. S. 60 81. m law and order are not here to be preserved by depriving the Negro children of their constitutional rights. The record before us clearly establishes that the growth of the Board's difculties to a magnitude beyond its unaided power to control is the product of state action, Those difculties, as counsel for the Board forthrightly conceded on the oral argument in this Court, can also be brought under control by state action. The controlling legal principles are plain. The command of the Fourteenth Amendment is that no \"State\" shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no 17'17 other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the ofcers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, , . . denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional in ibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power. his am Is that of the State. This must be so, or the constitutional prohibition has no meaning." Ex gem Viminia 100 U. S. 339 347. Thus the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of the laws; whatever the agency of the State taking the action. see Wminia v. Rives 100 Heading 2 AaEchDdEe AaBchDt AaBch Nbcw' ) Heading 3 Styles / Pane Adobe PDF U. S. 313; Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia 353 U. S, m; Shelley v. Kraemer 334 U. S. 1; or whatever the guise in which it is taken, see W v. Plummer 240 F. 2d 922' Department of Conservation and '3 share t!\" [3.5; Dictate Create and Share Request Signatures G Comments AutoSave Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat re" v A Calibri(Bo... 12 v A\" AV Aav E [a 2 Paste& BIQvebxzx Av/vAv : 4...... W A. 4.:- Page 6 of 13 3409 words U? English (United States) Focus n Iago _ .. + 120% AutoSave Cooper vs. Anderson Acrobat 9 Tell me AaBchDdEe Normal No Spacing Heading 1 u. a. at a; Pennsylvania v. board or ullecrors or City \"11815 or Pnnaaelonla .53.: u. 5. &; Shelley v. Kraemer 334 U. S. 1; or whatever the guise in which it is taken. see Qamhmn v. Plummer 240 F. 2d 922: Department of Conservation and Development vt Tate 231 F. 2d 615. In short, the constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color declared by this Court in the Brown else can neither be nullied openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial ofcers, nor nullied indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation whether attempted "ingeniously or ingenuously." Smith v Texas 311 U S. 128 132' What has been said, in the light of the facts developed, is enough to dispose of the case. However, we should answer the premise of the actions of the Governor and Legislature that they are not bound by our holding in the Brown case. It is necessary only to recall some basic constitutional propositions which are settled doctrine 18'1 8 Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803. Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbugy v. Madison, 1 Cami) 137 177 that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the iudicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contmry notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial ofcer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . -"Abl.01ll v. Booth 21 How. 506 524. No state legislator or executive or judicial ofcer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under thosejudgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery =." nited States v. Peters 5 Canon 115 136. A Governor who asserts a 19'19 power to nullify a federal court order is similarty restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the at of a smte Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases t t . t" Sferligg vt Constantin 287 U. St 378 397-398t It is, of course, quite true that the responsibility or public education is primarily the concern of the States, but it is equally true that such responsibilities, like all other state activity, must be exercised consistemly with federal constitutional requirements as they apply to state action. The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied and emphasized that ideal. State support of segregated schools through any anangement. management, funds, or property cannot be squared with the Amendment's command that no State shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The right of a student not to be segregated on racial grounds in schools so maintained is indeed so fundamental and pen/asive that it is embraced in the concept of due process of law. Bolling v. Shame 347 U. S. 497. 1] . . . in q . . 3 E Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View [9" v A Calibri(Bo..t 12 v A\" AV Aav [a 2 \"399$ BIgvabxzx Av/vAv Page 7 of 13 8409 words '33 English (United States) Heading 2 AaEchDdEe AaBchDt AaBch Nbcw' ) Heading 3 Styles / Pane Adobe PDF Focus a tags '3 share t!\" [315; Dictate Create and Share Request Signatures G Comments _ \\. + 120% AutoSave OFF wa Cooper vs. Anderson - Saved to my Mac Q Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat ? Tell me Share Comments Calibri (Bo... v 12 A A Aa Ap EV EVEVEE AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDc AaBbCc AaBbCcDc Paste BI Uvab X X A LA Norma No Spacing Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request Pane Adobe PDF Signatures The basic decision in Brown was unanimously reached by this Court only after the case had been briefed and twice argued and the issues had been given the most serious consideration. Since the first Brown opinion three new Justices have come to the Court. They are at one with the Justices still on the Court who participated in that basic decision as to its correctness, and that decision is now unanimously reaffirmed. The principles announced in that decision and the obedience of the States to them, according to the command of the Constitution, 20*20 are indispensable for the protection of the freedoms guaranteed by our fundamental charter for all of us. Our constitutional ideal of equal justice under law is thus made a living truth. Concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER." While unreservedly participating with my brethren in our joint opinion, I deem it appropriate also to deal individually with the great issue here at stake. By working together, by sharing in a common effort, men of different minds and tempers, even if they do not reach agreement, acquire understanding and thereby tolerance of their differences. This process was under way in Little Rock. The detailed plan formulated by the Little Rock School Board, in the light of local circumstances, had been approved by the United States District Court in Arkansas as satisfying the requirements of this Court's decree in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294. The Little Rock School Board had embarked on an educational effort "to obtain public acceptance" of its plan. Thus the process of the community's accommodation to new demands of law upon it, the development of habits of acceptance of the right of colored children to the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution, had peacefully and promisingly begun. The condition in Little Rock before this process was forcibly impeded by those in control of the government of Arkansas was thus described by the District Court, and these findings of fact have not been controverted: "14. Up to this time, no crowds had gathered about Central High School and no acts of violence or threats of violence in connection with the carrying out of the plan had occurred. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the school authorities had 21*21 frequently conferred with the Mayor and Chief of Police of Little Rock about taking appropriate steps by the Little Rock police to prevent any possible disturbances or acts of violence in connection with the attendance of the 9 colored students at Central High School. The Mayor considered that the Little Rock police force could adequately cope with any incidents which might arise at the opening of school. The Mayor, the Chief of Police, and the school authorities made no request to the Governor or any representative of his for State assistance in maintaining peace and order at Central High School. Neither the Governor nor any other official of the State government consulted with the Little Rock authorities about whether the Little Rock police were prepared to cone with any incidents which might arise at the school about Page 7 of 13 8409 words English (United States) Focus E + 120%AutoSave Cooper vs. Anderson Home V28 [CH Page 8 of 13 Insert Draw Calibri (Bo... 3409 words Design 12 BIgvabxz ll? Layout v A\" AV Aav r Av/VAV References Mailings Review View Acrobat 9 Tell me AaBchDdEe Normal Nc Spacing Heading 1 Little Rock police were prepared to cope with any incidents which might arise at the school, about any need for State assistance in maintaining peace and order, or about stationing the Arkansas National Guard at Central High School." 156 F. Sugg. 220 225. All this was disrupted by the introduction of the state militia and by other obstmctive measures taken by the State. The illegality of these interferences with the constitutional right of Negro children qualied to enter the Central High School is unaffected by whatever action or non-action the Federal Government had seen t to take. Nor is it neutralized by the undoubted good faith of the Little Rock School Board in endeavoring to discharge its constitutional duty. The use of force to further obedience to law is in any event a last resort and one not congenial to the spirit of our Nation. But the tragic aspect of this disruptive tamic was that the power of the State was used not to sustain law but as an instrument for thwarting law. The State of Arkansas is thus responsible for disabling one 2222 of its subordinate agencies, the Little Rock School Board, from peacefully carrying out the Board's and the State's constitutional duty. Accordingly, w 'le Arkansas is not a formal party in these proceedings and a decree cannot go against the State, it is legally and morally before the Court. Heading 2 AaEchDdEe AaBchDt AaBch Nbcw' ) Styles Dictate / Pane Heading 3 English (United States) We are now asked to hold that the illegal, forcible interference by the State of Arkansas with the continuance of what the Constitution commands, and the consequences in disorder that it entrained, should be recognized as justication for undoing what the School Board had formulated, what the District Court in 1955 had directed to be carried out, and what was in process of obedience. No explanation that may be offered in support of such a request can obscure the inescapable meaning that law should bow to force. To yield to such a claim would be to enthrone ofcial lawlessness, and lawlessness if not checked is the precursor of anarchy. On the few tragic occasions in the history of the Nation, North and South, when law was forcibly resisted or systematically evaded. it has sjguallgdthe breakdown of constitutional processes of government on which ultimately rest the liberties of all. Violent resistance to law cannot be made a legal reason for its suspension without loosening the fabric of our society. What could this mean but to acknowledge that disorder under the aegis of a State has moral superiority over the law of the Constitution? For those in authority thus to defy the law of the land is profoundly subversive not only of our constitutional system but of the presuppositions of a democratic society. The State "must . . . yield to an authority that is paramount to the State." This language of command to a State is Mr. Justice Holmes'. speaking for the Court that comprised Mr. Justice Van Devanter, Mr. Justice McReynolds, Mr. Justice Brandeis, Mr. Justice Sutherland, 23*23 Mr. Justice Butler, and Mr. Justice Stone. IMsconsin v. Illinois 281 U. S. 179 197. When deance of law iudicially_pronounced was last sought to be iustied before this Court views Focus a tags '3 share t!\" [315; Create and Share Request Adobe PDF Signatures G Comments _ \\. + 120% AutoSave Cooper vs. Anderson Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat 9 Tell me '35hare EComments [an v A Calibri(Bo... v 12 v A\" AV Aav A) \"399$ BIgvabxzx2 Av/VAV AaBchDdEe AaEchDdEe AaBchDt AaBch AaBchlk )Q L! V [E] All Normal No Spacing Heading1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request , Pane Adobe PDF Signatures were expressed which are now especially relevant: "The historic phrase 'a government of laws and not of men' epitomizes the distinguishing character of our political society. When John Adams put that phrase into the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights he was not indulging in a rhetorical ourish. He was expressing the aim of those who, with him, framed the Declaration of Independence and founded the Republic. 'A government of laws and not of men' was the rejection in positive terms of rule by at. whether by the at of governmental or private power. Every act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law, as nally pronounced by this Court. Even this Court has the last say only for a time. Being composed of tallible men, it may err. But revision of its errors must be by orderly process of law. The Court may be asked to reconsider its decisions, and this has been done successfully again and again throughout our history. Or, what this Court has deemed its duty to decide may be changed by legislation, as it often has been, and, on occasion, by constitutional amendment. "But from their own experience and their deep reading in history, the Founders knew that Law alone sawes a society from being rent by intemecine strife or mled by mere bmte power however disguised. 'Civilization involves subjection of force to reason, and the agency of this subjection is law.' (Pound, The Future of Law (1937) 47 Yale L. J. 1, 13.) The conception of a government by laws dominated the thoughts of those who founded this 24'24 Nation and designed its Constitution, although they knew as well as the belittlers of the conception that laws have to be made, interpreted and enforced by menu To that end, they set apart a body of men. who were to be the depositon'es of law, who by their disciplined training and character and by withdrawal from the usual temptations of private interest may reasonably be expected to be 'as free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.' So strongly were the framers of the Constitution bent on securing a reign of law that they endowed the judicial ofce with extraordinary safeguards and pratige. No one, no matter how exalted his public ofce or how righteous his private motive, can bejudge in his own case. That is what courts are for." United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258 307-309 (concurring gginion j. The duty to abstain from resistance to "the supreme Law of the Land," U. S. Const, Art. VI 11 2. as declared by the organ of our Government for ascertaining it, does not require immediate approval of it nor does it deny the right of dissent. Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction or deance is barred. Our kind of society cannot endure if the controlling authority of the Law as derived from the Constitution is not to be the tribunal specially charged with the duty of ascertaining and decianng what is "the supreme Law of the Land.\" (See President Andrew Jackson's Message to Congress of ' January 16, 1833, Il Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents (1896 ed.), 610, 623.) Particularly is this so where the declaration of Wnat "the supreme Law" commands on an undertying moral issue is not the dubious pronouncement of a gravely di ' d Court but is the unanimous . ' . . n a . . . K . ' Page 9 of 13 3409 words U? English (United States) Focus E E0 _ .. + 120% AutoSave Cooper vs. Anderson Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat 9 Tell me lastiare Geomments [an v A Calibri(Bo... v 12 v A\" AV Aav A) \"399$ BIgvabxzx2 Av/VAV AaBchDdEe AaEchDdEe AaBchDt AaBch AaBchDt )Q L! V [E] All Normal No Spacing Heading1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request / Pane Adobe PDF Signatures conclusion of a long-matured deliberative process. \"The Constitution is not the formulation of the 25'25 merely personal views of the members of this Court, nor can its authority be reduced to the claim that state ofcials are its controlling interpreters. Local customs, however hardened by time, are not decreed in heaven, Habits and m they engender may be counteracted and moderated. Experience attests that such local habits and feelings will yield, gradually though this be, to law and education. And educational inuences are exerted not only by explicit teaching, They vigorously ow from the fruitful exercise of the responsibility of those charged with political ofcial power and from the almost unconsciously transforming actualities of living under law. The process of ending unconstitutional exclusion of pupils from the common school system "common" meaning shared alikesolely because of color is no doubt not an easy, overnight task in a few States where a drastic alteration in the ways of communities is involved. Deep emotions have, no doubt, been stirred. They will not be calmed by letting violence looseviolence and deance employed and encouraged by those upon whom the duty of law observance should have the strongest claimnor by submitting to it under whatever guise employed. Only the constructive use of time will achieve what an advanced civilization demands and the Constitution conrms. For carrying out the decision that color alone cannot bit a child from a public school, this Court has recognized the diversity of circumstances in local school situations. But is it a reasonable hope that the necessary endeavors for such adiustment will be furthered, that racial frictions will be ameliorated, by a reversal of the process and interrupting effective measures toward the necessary goal? The progress that has been made in respecting the constitutional rights of the Negro children, according to the graduated plan sanctioned by the two 26'26 lower courts, would have to be retraced, perhaps with even greater difculty because of deference to forcible resistance. It would have to be retraced against the seemingly vindicated feeling of those who actively sought to block that progress. Is there not the strongest reason for concluding that to accede to the Board's request, on the basis of the circumstances that gave rise to it, for a suspension of the Board's non segregation plan, would be but the beginning of a series of delays calculated to nullify this Court's adamant decisions in the Brown case that the Constitution precludes compulsory segregation based on color in state-supported schools? That the responsibility of those who exercise power in a democratic govemment is not to reect inamed public feeling but to help form its understanding, is especially true when they are confronted with a problem ike a racially discriminating public school system. This is the lesson to be drawn from the heartening experience in ending enforced racial segregation in the public schools in cities with Negro populations of large proportions. Compliance with decisions of this Court, as the constitutional organ of the supreme Law of the Land, has often, throughout our history. depended on active support by state and local authorities. It presupposes such support. To withhold it, and indeed to use political power to try to paralyze the supreme Law, precludes the maintenance of our federal system as we have known and cherished it for one hundred and seventy years. Lincoln's appeal to "the better angels of our nature" failed to avert a fratricidal war. But the compassionate wisdom of Lincoln's First and Second Inaugurals bequeathed to the Union, cemented with blood. a moral heritage which, when drawn upon in times of stress and strife, is sure to nd specic ways and means to surmount difculties that may appear to be insurmountable. 27*27 AUGUST 28, 1958. _ \\. + 120% Page 10 of 13 8409 words U? English (United States) Focus n 1250 AutoSave OFF wa Cooper vs. Anderson - Saved to my Mac Q Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat Tell me Share Comments Calibri (Bo... v 12 A A Aa Ap AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDc|AaBbCc AaBbCcDc Paste BI Uvab X X |A LA Norma No Spacing Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request Pane Adobe PDF Signatures Miscellaneous Order. No. 1, Misc. AARON ET AL. . COOPER ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. On application for vacation of the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit staying issuance of its mandate and for a stay of the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and for such other orders as petitioners may be entitled to. Argued August 28, 1958. Having considered the oral arguments, the Court is in agreement with the view expressed by counsel for the respective parties and by the Solicitor General that petitioners' present application respecting the stay of the mandate of the Court of Appeals and of the order of the District Court of June 21, 1958, necessarily involves consideration of the merits of the Court of Appeals decision reversing the order of Judge Lemley. The Court is advised that the opening date of the High School will be September 15. In light of this, and representations made by counsel for the School Board as to the Board's plan for filing its petition for certiorari, the Court makes the following order: 1. The School Board's petition for certiorari may be filed not later than September 8, 1958. 2. The briefs of both parties on the merits may be filed not later than September 10, 1958. 3. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief by September 10, 1958, and to present oral argument if he is so advised 28*28 4. The Rules of the Court requiring printing of the petition, briefs, and record are dispensed with. 5. Oral argument upon the petition for certiorari is set for September 11, 1958, at twelve o'clock noon. 6. Action on the petitioners' application addressed to the stay of the mandate of the Court of Appeals and to the stay of the order of the District Court of June 21, 1958, is deferred pending the disposition of the petition for certiorari duly filed in accordance with the foregoing schedule Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Wiley A. Branton, Jack Greenberg and William Coleman, Jr. Richard C. Butler argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was A. F. House. Solicitor General Rankin, at the invitation of the Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging that the relief sought by petitioners should be granted. With him on the brief were Oscar H. Davis, Philip Elman and Ralph S. Spritzer. SEPTEMBER 4, 1958. Dismissal Under Rule 60. No. 116, October Term, 1958. AMERICAN BROADCASTING-PARAMOUNT THEATRES, INC., v. UNITED STATES. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Dismissed per stipulation pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. Albert C. Bickford for appellant. Oscar H. Davis, then Acting Solicitor General, for the United States. Reported below: 165 F. Supp. 643. Page 11 of 13 8409 words X English (United States) Focus E + 120%AutoSave OFF wa Cooper vs. Anderson - Saved to my Mac Q Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat ? Tell me Share Comments Calibri (Bo... v 12 EV EEVEE 24 T AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDc AaBbCc AaBbCcDc Paste BI Uvab X X |A LA Norma No Spacing Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request Pane Adobe PDF Signatures SEPTEMBER 11, 1958. Miscellaneous Order. No. 1, Misc. AARON ET AL. v. COOPER ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, 29*29 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. On application for vacation of the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit staying issuance of its mandate and for a stay of the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and for such other orders as petitioners may be entitled to. Motion for leave to file brief of J. W. Fulbright, as amicus curiae, denied. Motion for leave to file brief of John Bradley Minnick, as amicus curiae, denied. Motion for leave to file brief of William Burrow, as amicus curiae, denied. Certiorari Granted. No. 1. COOPER ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. AARON ET AL. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion for leave to file brief of Arlington County Chapter, Defenders of State Sovereignty of Individual Liberties, as amicus curiae, denied. Motion for leave to file brief of James M. Burke, as amicus curiae, denied. Motion for leave to file suit for declaratory judgment in re Little Rock and for other relief denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Richard C. Butler, A. F. House and, by special leave of the Court, John H. Haley, pro hac vice, for petitioners. Thurgood Marshall, Wiley A. Branton, William Coleman, Jr., Jack Greenberg and Louis H. Pollak for respondents. Solicitor General Rankin, appearing at the invitation of the Court, adhered to his brief filed in No. 1, Misc., August Special Term, 1958, urging that the relief sought by respondents should be granted. With him on this brief were Oscar H. Davis, Philip Elman and Ralph S. Spritzer. Reported below: 257 F. 2d 33. 30*30 SEPTEMBER 12, 1958. Dismissal Under Rule 60. No. 38, Misc., October Term, 1958. BLOCH v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Dismissed per stipulation pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Page 11 of 13 8409 words X English (United States) Focus E + 120%AutoSave OFF wa Cooper vs. Anderson - Saved to my Mac Q Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat Tell me Share Comments Calibri (Bo... v 12 A A Aa Ap 24 T AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDc AaBbCc AaBbCcDc Paste BI U vab X X |A DAY Norma No Spacing Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request Pane Adobe PDF Signatures Rankin for respondent. Reported below: 254 F. 2d 277. SEPTEMBER 17, 1958. Dismissal Under Rule 60. No. 87, October Term, 1958. ALLEN N. SPOONER & SONS, INC., ET AL. v. PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Dismissed per stipulation pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. Martin J. McHugh was on the stipulation for petitioners. With him on the petition was Thomas F. Daly. John M. Aherne was on the stipulation for respondent. Reported below: 253 F. 2d 584. t] NOTE: The per curiam opinion announced on September 12, 1958, and printed in a footnote, post, p. 5, applies not only to this case but also to No. 1, Misc., August Special Term, 1958, Aaron et al. v. Cooper et al., on application for vacation of order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit staying issuance of its mandate, for stay of order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and for such other orders as petitioners may be entitled to, argued August 28, 1958. ['l The following was the Court's per curiam opinion: 'PER CURIAM. "The Court, having fully deliberated upon the oral arguments had on August 28, 1958, as supplemented by the arguments presented on September 11, 1958, and all the briefs on file, is unanimously of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit of August 18, 1958, 257 F. 2d 33, must be affirmed. In view of the imminent commencement of the new school year at the Central High School of Little Rock, Arkansas, we deem it important to make prompt announcement of our judgment affirming the Court of Appeals. The expression of the views supporting our judgment will be prepared and announced in due course. "It is accordingly ordered that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, dated August 18, 1958, 257 F. 2d 33, reversing the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, dated June 20, 1958, 163 F. Supp. 13, be affirmed, and that the judgments of the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, dated August 28, 1956, see 143 F. Supp. 855, and September 3, 1957, enforcing the School Board's plan for desegregation in compliance with the decision of this Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 349 U. S. 294, be reinstated. It follows that the order of the Court of Appeals dated August 21, 1958, staying its own mandate is of no further effect. "The judgment of this Court shall be effective immediately and shall be communicated forthwith to the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas." ['] [NOTE: This opinion was filed October 6, 1958.] ] Page 12 of 13 8409 words English (United States) Focus E + 120%