Little rock on trial cooper vs. aaron

The governor of the state, Orville Faubus, called out the National Guard to prevent the students from entering, and when the court again ordered the students admitted, Faubus withdrew the troops. But when the students tried to enroll, a mob attacked the school and drove them off. Eisenhower could no longer sit by passively and watch federal authority flouted. He ordered a thousand paratroopers into Little Rock, put ten thousand Arkansas national guardsmen under federal control and used the troops to protect the black students and to maintain order in the school.

Eisenhower withdrew the troops at the end of the school year, and then the Supreme Court, for the first time since Brown II, spoke out on desegregation in Cooper v.

Aaron, a case arising out of the Arkansas turmoil. The state had argued that it was not bound by the Court's decision, since it had not been a party to the original suit; beyond that, Arkansas claimed that a governor of a state had the same power to interpret the Constitution as did the Supreme Court.

The Court not only reaffirmed the ruling in Brown that segregation was unconstitutional, but in an unusual step issued an opinion signed by all nine justices. In the decision, the Court reasserted its authority as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, and it reminded Arkansas and the nation that ever since it had been, in Chief Justice John Marshall's phrase, "the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

The case marked the end of the waiting period, during which time the Court had given southern states time to accept Brown and start desegregating schools; now the Court indicated its impatience with delay. The law required that segregation end, and in a series of cases following Cooper, the justices handed down one decision after another ordering schools to begin implementing desegregation. As this case reaches us it raises questions of the highest importance to the maintenance of our federal 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 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. Aaron and Parents Involved. Schmidt, Christoper W.

Aaron and Judicial Supremacy. Stockley, Grif. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, Zietlow, Rebecca E. Bowen School of Law. Honor or memorial gifts are an everlasting way to pay tribute to someone who has touched your life. When a tribute gift is given the honoree will receive a letter acknowledging your generosity and a bookplate will be placed in a book.

For more information, contact or calsfoundation cals. Read our Privacy Policy. The first time you log in to our catalog you will need to create an account. Creating an account gives you access to all these features.

Go Back. Get Involved. Nominate an Entry Review Entries. Suggest a Topic or Author Suggest Media. Become a Volunteer Involve Students. Other Online Encyclopedias Other Resources. Lesson Plans History Day Volunteers Donors.

Entries All Entries Aaron v. Cooper aka: Cooper v. Aaron Aaron v. Plaintiffs in the Aaron v. Massie, Andrea father, William Massie M. Stox Stox, Ray father, B. Stox Stox, Geraldine father, B. Type Thing. Related Media L. Dick Butler. Ronald Davies. The School Board consulted with the District Courts, and the Court requested that the students go back to the school and continue the initial plan of desegregation.

The governor continued to deny the students access into Central High School for three weeks. On September 7, , the District Court denied a petition by the School Board requesting an order for a temporary suspension of the program. The District Court then filed a preliminary injunction on September 20, ,ordering the Governor and the National Guard to discontinue preventing the students from entering the school and interfering with the plan of desegregation.

On February 20, , the School Board and the Superintendent of the Schools filed a petition to postpone the program of desegregation.

Their reasoning for this was that the presence of the African American students, public hostility of the program, and the past actions of the governor had an effect on the educational program at Central High School.

The School Board suggested that the African American students already in attendance would withdraw from the school and return to their segregated high schools and the program would be suspended for two and a half years. The District Court granted this request. The judgement was dated June 20, The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and also sought a stay on the District Court decision.

The Court of Appeals did not act on the petition for a stay, but, on August 18, , after convening in special session on August 4 and hearing the appeal, reversed the District Court decision.

On August 21, , the Court of Appeals stayed its mandate to permit the School Board to petition this Court for certiorari. On September 12, , the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the per curiam opinion. In an unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, it was found that the efforts made by the school board and the district courts of Arkansas to resist plans to desegregate schools was unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Warren wrote the majority opinion, which was unanimous. The attorney submitted evidence to show that the performance of Central High School students had suffered during the school year. An attorney on behalf of the students urged the Supreme Court to affirm the Court of Appeals' decision. Integration should not be delayed. Postponing it would continue to harm Black students in favor of keeping the peace.

The Supreme Court would undermine its own decision in allowing a postponement, the attorney argued. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. The Court found that the school board had acted in good faith in crafting and carrying out the integration plan. The justices agreed with the school board that most of the problems with integration stemmed from the governor and his political supporters. However, the Court declined to grant the school board's petition to postpone integration.

The rights of children to attend school and gain an education cannot be "sacrificed or yielded to the violence and disorder" that plagued Little Rock, the Court opined. Constitution and Marbury v. The highest Court in the land has the final say on interpreting the Constitution, the Court opined. The state government cannot ignore or nullify Supreme Court orders through legislation, the Court added. Therefore, both the governor of Arkansas and the Arkansas school boards were bound by Brown v.

Board of Education. Article VI, Clause 3 requires public officials to take an oath, swearing that they will uphold the Constitution. In ignoring the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v.

Board of Education, the public officials were breaking their oaths, the Court added. Cooper v. Aaron eliminated any doubt that compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education was optional. The Supreme Court's decision reinforced its role at the sole and final interpreter of the Constitution.

It also reinforced the strength of federal civil rights laws by noting that the Court's rulings bind all government officials. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Use precise geolocation data.