Facts
- After a federal court-approved gradual desegregation plan was adopted for Little Rock public schools, nine Black students were ordered admitted to Central High for the 1957–1958 school year.
- Arkansas officials, including the Governor and legislature, opposed desegregation; the Governor used the National Guard to block the students’ entry amid threats and mob resistance.
- Federal troops were deployed to protect the students, who then attended Central High for the remainder of the school year.
- In 1958, the school board and superintendent petitioned the federal district court to suspend the desegregation plan for 2½ years, citing turmoil and disruption to education.
- The district court granted the suspension; the Eighth Circuit reversed and directed continued implementation of desegregation.
Issues
- Whether state officials are bound by federal court orders implementing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution requiring school desegregation.
- Whether a federal court may suspend a desegregation plan based on local disorder and opposition linked to state resistance.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Eighth Circuit and ordered immediate enforcement of desegregation.
- The Court held that state officials are bound by the Supreme Court’s constitutional interpretations and cannot claim authority to disregard federal court orders.
- The Court rejected delaying desegregation to address disorder where the disruption was substantially attributable to official state opposition.
- The Court reinstated enforcement of the desegregation plan and denied the requested 30-month postponement.
Legal Principles
- The Constitution is supreme law, and the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Constitution are binding on the states.
- State executive and legislative actions cannot nullify or evade federal constitutional rights or federal court decrees enforcing those rights.
- The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from using governmental power to exclude students from public schools on racial grounds where the state participates through management, funding, or property.
- “Law and order” concerns do not justify suspending desegregation when the disorder reflects hostility to constitutional rights or state-sponsored resistance.
- Any limited administrative flexibility in implementing desegregation must be directed to the earliest practicable completion and cannot be used to restore segregation.
Conclusion
The Court required Little Rock to proceed with desegregation and made clear that state officials must comply with federal court orders grounded in Supreme Court constitutional rulings, regardless of local resistance or resulting disorder.