358 U.S. 1 (1958)
The Little Rock School Board, three days after the Supreme Court's May 17, 1954, decision in Brown v. Board of Education, adopted a statement recognizing its responsibility to comply with federal constitutional requirements when the method was outlined.1 On May 24, 1955, seven days before the Brown decree on remedy, the Board approved a gradual desegregation plan that would begin at the senior high school level in the fall of 1957 and reach full compliance by 1963.2 The District Court upheld the plan in Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.3
Arkansas state authorities took contrasting steps to maintain segregation.4 In November 1956 an amendment to the state constitution commanded the General Assembly to oppose the Brown decisions in every constitutional manner, and the legislature enacted a pupil assignment law, a statute relieving compulsory attendance at racially mixed schools, and a law creating a State Sovereignty Commission.5
On September 2, 1957, the day before nine Negro students were scheduled to enter Central High School, Governor Faubus sent units of the Arkansas National Guard to the school grounds and placed the school off limits to colored students.6 The Guard stood shoulder to shoulder at the entrance and prevented the students from entering for the next three weeks.7 After an investigation requested by the District Court, the United States Attorney and Attorney General filed a petition that resulted in a September 20, 1957, preliminary injunction against the Governor and Guard officers.8
Federal troops were dispatched to Central High School on September 25, 1957, and eight of the Negro students attended under their protection for the remainder of the school year.9 On February 20, 1958, the School Board and Superintendent petitioned the District Court to withdraw the Negro students and postpone all further desegregation steps for two and one-half years, citing conditions of chaos, repeated violence, tension among students and parents, and an adverse effect on the educational program.10
The District Court granted the requested postponement on June 20, 1958.11 The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed that judgment on August 18, 1958.12 The Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 11, 1958, heard oral argument the same day, and issued its judgment the following day.13
Whether the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas have a duty to obey federal court orders resting on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education?14
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the supreme Law of the Land, and the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution as established in Marbury v. Madison.15 Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath to support the Constitution, and no state official can nullify federal court orders or the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.16
Yes. The Governor and Legislature of Arkansas have a duty to obey federal court orders resting on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education.1718 These actions by the Governor and Legislature directly resisted the federal court orders implementing Brown and therefore violated their constitutional duty.19
The Governor and Legislature of Arkansas have a duty to obey federal court orders resting on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education.
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Frankfurter observed that 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.20 The State of Arkansas is thus responsible for disabling one of its subordinate agencies, the Little Rock School Board, from peacefully carrying out the Board's and the State's constitutional duty.21 To yield to such a claim would be to enthrone official lawlessness, and lawlessness if not checked is the precursor of anarchy.22
Violent resistance to law cannot be made a legal reason for its suspension without loosening the fabric of our society.23
Whether the Little Rock School Board is entitled to suspend for two and one-half years the operation of its court-approved desegregation program due to public hostility and actions by state officials?24
The constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color cannot be nullified by state legislators or executive officers through evasive schemes.25 The rights of the Negro children cannot be sacrificed to violence and disorder caused by state officials.26 The School Board stands as an agent of the state and cannot assert good faith as a legal excuse when other state officials have rendered compliance difficult.27
No. The Little Rock School Board is not entitled to suspend for two and one-half years the operation of its court-approved desegregation program due to public hostility and actions by state officials.2829 The conditions of chaos, bedlam, turmoil, and violence at Central High School were directly traceable to the actions of the Governor and Legislature, and the constitutional rights of the respondents cannot be yielded to such state-created hostility.30
The Little Rock School Board is not entitled to suspend for two and one-half years the operation of its court-approved desegregation program due to public hostility and actions by state officials.
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Frankfurter stressed that the illegal, forcible interference by the State of Arkansas with the continuance of what the Constitution commands should not be recognized as justification for undoing what the School Board had formulated.31 Acceding to the Board's request for a suspension of the non-segregation plan would be but the beginning of a series of delays calculated to nullify this Court's decisions in the Brown case.32 The responsibility of those who exercise power in a democratic government is not to reflect inflamed public feeling but to help form its understanding.33