No. A person's constitutional rights can't be taken away just because some people, especially powerful government leaders, are causing trouble and violence to stop it. The Supreme Court's decisions are the highest law in the country, and Arkansas has to follow them. The state can't create a huge mess on purpose and then use that mess as an excuse to break the law and deny people's rights.

Absolutely not. If we allowed the government to get its way by causing violence, it would mean that mob rule is more powerful than the law. That would destroy our entire system of government, which is based on laws, not force. You cannot use violent resistance as a legal reason to put the law on hold.

Yes, state officials have to follow what the Supreme Court says about the Constitution. The Governor and lawmakers in Arkansas tried to stop black kids from going to school with white kids, but that's not allowed. The Supreme Court already decided that separating kids by race in schools is wrong. The good things the school leaders did aren't being questioned, but the state's actions made it hard to protect the rights of the black students. The Supreme Court's decisions about the Constitution are the most important laws, and everyone, including state officials, must follow them. They can't delay desegregation to keep the peace or for any other reason that goes against the Constitution.

I fully agree with the Court's opinion, but I want to talk about the big issue here. The school leaders in Little Rock were making progress in peacefully letting black and white kids go to school together until the state government messed it up. It's really bad and goes against our country's values when a state uses force to go against the Constitution and the law. People can criticize the Court's decisions, but they can't actively block or defy them. Everyone has a duty to follow the law as the Court explains it, even if they disagree. Only by taking time and having responsible political leaders can we achieve what a good society requires and the Constitution supports. Letting the school delay its plan to desegregate because the state resisted would only lead to more delays and go against what the Court said in Brown. States and local authorities need to support and follow the Court's decisions for our country's system to work.

Yes, state officials have to follow what we say about the Constitution. The Governor and lawmakers in Arkansas tried to stop black kids from going to school with white kids, but that's not allowed. We already decided that separating kids by race in schools is wrong. The good things the school leaders did aren't being questioned, but the state's actions made it hard to protect the rights of the black students. Our decisions about the Constitution are the most important laws, and everyone, including state officials, must follow them. They can't delay desegregation to keep the peace or for any other reason that goes against the Constitution.

Yes, state officials must follow the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and not delay. I fully agree with the Court's opinion, but I want to talk about the big issue here. The school leaders in Little Rock were making progress in peacefully letting black and white kids go to school together until the state government messed it up. It's really bad and goes against our country's values when a state uses force to go against the Constitution and the law. People can criticize the Court's decisions, but they can't actively block or defy them. Everyone has a duty to follow the law as the Court explains it, even if they disagree. Only by taking time and having responsible political leaders can we achieve what a good society requires and the Constitution supports. Letting the school delay its plan to desegregate because the state resisted would only lead to more delays and go against what the Court said in Brown. States and local authorities need to support and follow the Court's decisions for our country's system to work.

—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 consitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the [Constitution] enunciated by this Court... is [also] the supreme law of the …

The Supreme Court held that the foregoing facts did not justify a postponement of the plan of desegregation, stating that however desirable the preservation of the public peace may be it "cannot be accomplished by laws or ordinances which deny rights created or protected by the federal Constitution."

And, even if the defendants did not recognize the heavy burden resting upon them before the problem became real and present, they should have done so when this Court, in preliminary proceedings, undertook to make it abundantly clear that they are "*** duty bound to devote every effort toward initiating desegregation and bringing about the elimination of racial …

—holding that an oath to support the Constitution is an oath to support its interpretation by the Supreme Court

—of the laws; whatever the agency of the State taking the action [citations]; or whatever the guise in which it is taken [citations]. 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 case can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive …

As judges, however, we are sworn to uphold the law even when its content gives rise to bitter dispute.

State support of segregated schools through any arrangement, management, funds, or property cannot be squared with the [Fourteenth] Amendment's command that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

—hardly be suggested 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 difficult or impossible by the actions of other state officials. The situation here is in no different posture because the …

The duty of this Court to make its own independent examination of the record when federal constitutional deprivations are alleged is clear, resting, as it does, on our solemn responsibility for maintaining the Constitution inviolate.

While the trial court may have had good intentions, it cannot ignore the law out of fear that one or both parties might respond unfavorably or act inappropriately as a result of the court's proper decision in awarding costs and attorney fees under the statute.

No. The constitutional rights of students not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color can neither be nullified openly by state officials nor indirectly through evasive schemes or by yielding to violence and disorder created by those same officials. Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education is the supreme law of the land and is binding on all state officials. The violent and chaotic conditions at Central High School were directly traceable to the actions of the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas; a state cannot use disorder it created as a legal justification for depriving citizens of their constitutional rights. Citing Buchanan v. Warley, the Court affirmed that the goal of preserving public peace cannot be accomplished by denying rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

No. To yield to a claim for suspension based on state-sponsored violence would be to enthrone official lawlessness and allow law to bow to force, which is the precursor to anarchy. The State of Arkansas is responsible for disabling the Little Rock School Board, its own subordinate agency, from peacefully carrying out its constitutional duty. Violent resistance to law cannot be made a legal reason for its suspension without loosening the fabric of society, as it would acknowledge that state-sponsored disorder has moral superiority over the law of the Constitution. Active obstruction or defiance of the supreme law of the land, as declared by the Supreme Court, is barred if our constitutional system is to endure.

Yes, state officials are obligated to comply with federal court orders based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. The actions of the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas, which were aimed at resisting desegregation, cannot be used to justify the suspension of the constitutional rights of African American students. The School Board's good faith is not in question, but the state's actions have created conditions that impede the enforcement of constitutional rights. The Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause extends to all state action, and no state actor can deny these protections. The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education is the supreme law of the land, and state officials are bound by it because Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land. The preservation of public peace cannot justify laws or actions that deny rights protected by the federal Constitution. State support of segregated schools through any arrangement, management, funds, or property cannot be squared with the Amendment's command that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I unreservedly join the Court's opinion, but I also write separately to address the great issue at stake. The Little Rock School Board had made progress in peacefully implementing desegregation until the state government disrupted the process. The use of state force to defy the Constitution and thwart the law is tragic and subversive to our constitutional system and democratic society. Criticism of the Court's decisions is permissible, but active obstruction or defiance is not. The duty to observe the law as declared by the Court requires abstention from resistance, even if one disagrees with the ruling. Only the constructive use of time and the fruitful exercise of political responsibility will achieve what an advanced civilization demands and the Constitution confirms. Acceding to the Board's request for a suspension of its desegregation plan based on the state's resistance would only lead to further delays and nullify the Court's decisions in Brown. Compliance with the Court's decisions depends on active support by state and local authorities, and withholding that support precludes the maintenance of our federal system.

Cooper v. Aaron

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot