Cooper v.

Aaron
358 U.S. 1 (1958)

Opinion of the Court by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, application of the petitioners, the Little Rock
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE School Board and School Superintendent, to
FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, suspend for two and one-half years the
MR. JUSTICE BURTON, MR. JUSTICE operation of the School Board's court-approved
CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. desegregation program. In order that the School
JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE Board might know, without doubt, its duty in
WHITTAKER. this regard before the opening of school, which
had been set for the following Monday,
As this case reaches us, it raises questions of the September 15, 1958, we immediately issued the
highest importance to the maintenance of our judgment, reserving the expression of our
federal system of government. It necessarily supporting views to a later date. This opinion of
involves a claim by the Governor and all of the members of the Court embodies those
Legislature of a State that there is no duty on views.
state officials to obey federal court orders
resting on this Court's considered interpretation The following are the facts and circumstances
of the United States Constitution. Specifically so far as necessary to show how the legal
it involves actions by the Governor and questions are presented.
Legislature of Arkansas upon the premise that
they are not bound by our holding in Brown v. On May 17, 1954, this Court decided that
Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. That holding enforced racial segregation in the public schools
was that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids of a State is a denial of the equal protection of
States to use their governmental powers to bar the laws enjoined by the Fourteenth
children on racial grounds from attending Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education,
schools where there is state participation 347 U.S. 483. The Court postponed, pending
through any arrangement, management, funds further argument, formulation of a decree to
or property. We are urged to uphold a effectuate this decision. That decree was
suspension of the Little Rock School Board's rendered May 31, 1955. Brown v. Board of
plan to do away with segregated public schools Education, 349 U.S. 294. ***
in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to On May 20, 1954, three days after the first
upset and nullify our holding in Brown v. Board Brown opinion, the Little Rock District School
of Education have been further challenged and Board adopted, and on May 23, 1954, made
tested in the courts. We reject these public, a statement of policy entitled "Supreme
contentions. Court Decision--Segregation in Public
The case was argued before us on September Schools." In this statement the Board
11, 1958. On the following day we recognized that
unanimously affirmed the judgment of the "It is our responsibility to comply with Federal
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which Constitutional Requirements and we intend to
had reversed a judgment of the District Court do so when the Supreme Court of the United
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 163 F. States outlines the method to be followed."
Supp. 13. The District Court had granted the
 COOPER v. AARON

*** On the morning of the next day, September 4,

1957, the Negro children attempted to enter the
While the School Board was thus going forward high school but, as the District Court later
with its preparation for desegregating the Little found, units of the Arkansas National Guard
Rock school system, other state authorities, in "acting pursuant to the Governor's order, stood
contrast, were actively pursuing a program shoulder to shoulder at the school grounds and
designed to perpetuate in Arkansas the system thereby forcibly prevented the 9 Negro students
of racial segregation which this Court had held . . . from entering," as they continued to do
violated the Fourteenth Amendment. First every school day during the following three
came, in November 1956, an amendment to the weeks. 156 F. Supp. at 225.
State Constitution flatly commanding the
Arkansas General Assembly to oppose "in That same day, September 4, 1957, the United
every Constitutional manner the Un- States Attorney for the Eastern District of
constitutional desegregation decisions of May Arkansas was requested by the District Court to
17, 1954 and May 31, 1955 of the United States begin an immediate investigation in order to fix
Supreme Court," Ark. Const., Amend. 44, and, responsibility for the interference with the
through the initiative, a pupil assignment law, orderly implementation of the District Court's
Ark. Stat. 80-1519 to 80-1524. Pursuant to this direction to carry out the desegregation
state constitutional command, a law relieving program. *** Upon completion of the United
school children from compulsory attendance at States Attorney's investigation, he and the
racially mixed schools, Ark. Stat. 80-1525, and Attorney General of the United States, at the
a law establishing a State Sovereignty District Court's request, entered the proceedings
Commission *** were enacted by the General and filed a petition on behalf of the United
Assembly in February 1957. States, as amicus curiae, to enjoin the Governor
of Arkansas and officers of the Arkansas
The School Board and the Superintendent of National Guard from further attempts to prevent
Schools nevertheless continued with obedience to the court's order. After hearings
preparations to carry out the first stage of the on the petition, the District Court found that the
desegregation program. Nine Negro children School Board's plan had been obstructed by the
were scheduled for admission in September Governor through the use of National Guard
1957 to Central High School, which has more troops, and granted a preliminary injunction on
than two thousand students. Various September 20, 1957, enjoining the Governor
administrative measures, designed to assure the and the officers of the Guard from preventing
smooth transition of this first stage of the attendance of Negro children at Central
desegregation, were undertaken. High School, and from otherwise obstructing or
On September 2, 1957, the day before these interfering with the orders of the court in
Negro students were to enter Central High, the connection with the plan. 156 F. Supp. 220,
school authorities were met with drastic affirmed, Faubus v. United States, 254 F.2d
opposing action on the part of the Governor of 797. The National Guard was then withdrawn
Arkansas who dispatched units of the Arkansas from the school.
National Guard to the Central High School The next school day was Monday, September
grounds and placed the school "off limits" to 23, 1957. The Negro children entered the high
colored students. ***

Page 2 of 4
 COOPER v. AARON

school that morning under the protection of the the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and
Little Rock Police Department and members of also sought there a stay of the District Court's
the Arkansas State Police. But the officers judgment. At the same time they filed a petition
caused the children to be removed from the for certiorari in this Court asking us to review
school during the morning because they had the District Court's judgment without awaiting
difficulty controlling a large and demonstrating the disposition of their appeal to the Court of
crowd which had gathered at the high school. Appeals, or of their petition to that court for a
163 F.Supp., at 16. On September 25, however, stay. That we declined to do. 357 U.S. 566.
the President of the United States dispatched The Court of Appeals did not act on the petition
federal troops to Central High School and for a stay, but, on August 18, 1958, after
admission of the Negro students to the school convening in special session on August 4 and
was thereby effected. Regular army troops hearing the appeal, reversed the District Court,
continued at the high school until November 27, 257 F.2d 33. ***
1957. They were then replaced by federalized
National Guardsmen who remained throughout On September 12, 1958, we unanimously
the balance of the school year. Eight of the affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals
Negro students remained in attendance at the in [a] per curiam opinion ***.
school throughout the school year. In affirming the judgment of the Court of
We come now to the aspect of the proceedings Appeals which reversed the District Court we
presently before us. On February 20, 1958, the have accepted without reservation the position
School Board and the Superintendent of of the School Board, the Superintendent of
Schools filed a petition in the District Court Schools, and their counsel that they displayed
seeking a postponement of their program for entire good faith in the conduct of these
desegregation. Their position in essence was proceedings and in dealing with the unfortunate
that because of extreme public hostility, which and distressing sequence of events which has
they stated had been engendered largely by the been outlined. We likewise have accepted the
official attitudes and actions of the Governor findings of the District Court as to the
and the Legislature, the maintenance of a sound conditions at Central High School during the
educational program at Central High School, 1957-1958 school year, and also the findings
with the Negro students in attendance, would be that the educational progress of all the students,
impossible. The Board therefore proposed that white and colored, of that school has suffered
the Negro students already admitted to the and will continue to suffer if the conditions
school be withdrawn and sent to segregated which prevailed last year are permitted to
schools, and that all further steps to carry out thecontinue.
Board's desegregation program be postponed The significance of these findings, however, is
for a period later suggested by the Board to be to be considered in light of the fact, indisputably
two and one-half years. revealed by the record before us, that the
After a hearing the District Court granted the conditions they depict are directly traceable to
relief requested by the Board. *** the actions of legislators and executive officials
of the State of Arkansas, taken in their official
The District Court's judgment was dated June capacities, which reflect their own
20, 1958. The Negro respondents appealed to determination to resist this Court's decision in

Page 3 of 4
 COOPER v. AARON

the Brown case and which have brought about effect on the States "any Thing in the
violent resistance to that decision in Arkansas. Constitution or Laws of any State to the
*** Contrary notwithstanding." Every state
legislator and executive and judicial officer is
The controlling legal principles are plain. *** In solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to
short, the constitutional rights of children not to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution."
be discriminated against in school admission on Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous
grounds of race or color declared by this Court Court in 1859, said that this requirement
in the Brown case can neither be nullified reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the
openly and directly by state legislators or state Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and
executive or judicial officers, nor nullified to guard against resistance to or evasion of its
indirectly by them through evasive schemes for authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman
segregation whether attempted "ingeniously or v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.
ingenuously." Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128,
132. No state legislator or executive or judicial
officer can war against the Constitution without
What has been said, in the light of the facts violating his undertaking to support it. ***
developed, is enough to dispose of the case.
However, we should answer the premise of the Since the first Brown opinion, three new
actions of the Governor and Legislature that Justices have come to the Court. They are at
they are not bound by our holding in the Brown one with the Justices still on the Court who
case. It is necessary only to recall some basic participated in that basic decision as to its
constitutional propositions which are settled correctness, and that decision is now
doctrine. unanimously reaffirmed. The principles
announced in that decision and the obedience of
Article VI of the Constitution makes the the States to them, according to the command of
Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In the Constitution, are indispensable for the
1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a protection of the freedoms guaranteed by our
unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution fundamental charter for all of us. Our
as "the fundamental and paramount law of the constitutional ideal of equal justice under law is
nation," declared in the notable case of thus made a living truth.
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the
judicial 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

Page 4 of 4