The decision of the Supreme Court "forgotten" and its impact on our policy

The Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.

(IStock)

In the current national debate on immigration policies, racial discrimination, LGBTQ rights and executive power, the anniversary of an important legal and political dispute that has directly influenced this debate will pass quietly, his inheritance almost forgotten.

In September 1958, sixty years ago next week, the US Supreme Court finally acquired its reputation as a co-equal branch of the federal government, in a legal drama of urgency and uncertainty.

For the first time, the High Court may have fulfilled its mandate, stating unequivocally that its interpretation of the Constitution was the "supreme law of the land" and ordering immediate respect by the state.

Thurgood Marshall, the leading advocate of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, had valued his audience: nine older white men, who were not very happy to review their historical precedent, which was near impossible to fully implement.

The cunning civil rights veteran overturned the roles of judges in a civil rights case that was debated in a matter of hours, which speaks volumes about public confidence in government and a fashionable social issue.

Marshall's main contention was that officials in Little Rock, Arkansas, had to follow a federal court order to separate their schools. At age 50, the focus was not on equality among black students and on the broader civic responsibilities of society.

"Education is not the teaching of three R. Education is the teaching of global citizenship, to learn, to live with fellow citizens and most of all to learn to obey the law, "he says. argument.

"I'm not worried about the Negro kids at this point, I do not think they're in this case as such," Marsall said. "I'm worried about the Little Rock white kids who have been told as young people that the way to claim their rights is to break the law and challenge the legal authorities. future.The future of children.They have struggled with democracy long enough.They know it. "

The audio was secretly recorded by the court and made available to the public decades later. (Marshall's words can be heard here at 27:50 of Part 2.)

Just one day after the dispute, the High Court unanimously ordered the Governor of Arkansas to continue admitting African-American students.

"No state legislator, leader or officer of justice can make war on the Constitution without violating his commitment to support it", wrote unanimously the training Cooper c. Aaron. Respect for the principles of civil rights, as stated by the federal courts, is "indispensable to the protection of the freedoms guaranteed by our fundamental charter for all of us. Our constitutional ideal of equality of justice has thus become a living truth. "

LEITAGE OF LITTLE ROCK

The decision of the Court in the case of Cooper v. Aaron intervened four years after the landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled unconstitutional "distinct but equal" public facilities. It was revolutionary, but many civil rights activists thought little progress had been made in the aftermath of the crisis, a sentiment that has been repeated today.

"What happened in 1954?" asked current judge Stephen Breyer in a speech last January. "Nothing happened, what happened in 1955, nothing, what happened in 1956, double nothing."

The Brown decision simply stated that school segregation policies violated the 14th amendment, implicitly leaving states and lower courts to deal with the consequences. A follow-up decision one year later imposed "swift" school integration, under the supervision of the federal court to ensure compliance, but without a timetable.

Some states did not need any federal encouragement, but others, particularly in the South, were deliberately slow to change, and many courts were initially reluctant to enforce compliance. .

The Little Rock School Board initially created a court-backed integration plan, but the state legislature and Governor Orval Faubus passed new laws banning such efforts. Local sovereignty was at stake, they insisted.

The situation in the capital of Arkansas drew national attention in September 1957, when the National Guard prevented a group of black students from attending the city's largest high school (the 'Little'). Rock Nine ").

The crisis escalated after the federal courts again ordered that the doors of Little Rock Central High School be open to all and that President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the army. Despite threats of violence, black students entered and started taking classes. They have been subjected to provocation, threats and continued physical abuse.

A few months later, the school board asked for a delay in implementing the current integration plan, citing "chaos, terror and unrest". A federal district judge agreed to do so, but a federal court of appeal reversed that decision.

It was then that the United States Supreme Court intervened in two special argumentation sessions, ordering an immediate integration and reaffirming that the rights of minority students could not be sacrificed instead of law and order. the peace. But the assembled judges went further by clearly asserting their authority to bind states to their decisions, which could not be circumvented by competing laws.

Faubus was furious, closing the public schools of the capital and ordering a special election in the coming days to strengthen his actions.

"The Supreme Court turns a blind eye to all the facts and basically says: integration at all costs," he said, "even if it means the destruction of our school system, our educational processes and the risk of disorder and violence could result in the loss of life – perhaps yours. "

Open mistrust continued, the desegregation of tokens continued slowly in many parts of the south and south-west, and the impact is still felt in many communities.

The citizens of Little Rock have called 1958 a "lost year" in Little Rock, but the Supreme Court's new recognition of its own power inherent in its decisions would continue. Some researchers have since described this bench as a "living voice of the Constitution".

Beginning in the 1960s, a series of laws on abortion, criminal procedure and civil rights were debated and overturned by the Supreme Court in a series of cases known as Gideon, Miranda, Loving, Roe and Obergefell.

Against-policy

But the decision Cooper vs. Aaron has also created a reaction of legal and political rejection, especially among some conservatives.

Edwin Meese, a former attorney general of President Ronald Reagan, has been among those who have repeatedly criticized the Supreme Court for what they see as assertion of assertive power.

"The constitutional interpretation is not the only court case, but also, and rightfully, that of all branches of government," wrote Meese.

The former AG has identified the Cooper decision as the beginning of an era of "imperial judicial power".

& # 39; Obviously, the decision was binding on the parties involved; but the implication that everyone should accept his uncritical judgments, that it was a decision that could not be appealed, was amazing. "

Meese also believes that, in saying that his interpretation of the Constitution was "the supreme law of the land", this vision "was and is at war with the Constitution, at war with the fundamental principles of a democratic government and at war with the very meaning of the rule of law. & # 39; & # 39;

Proponents of a more limited role for the nine unelected judges cited Abraham Lincoln's remarks in his inaugural speech of 1861.

"If the policy of the government, on vital issues, affecting all the people, must be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court," he said, "the people will have ceased to be their own leader, having, virtually resigned from their government, in the hands of this eminent court. "

Lincoln had his own problems with the Supreme Court, ignoring his decision, the president did not have the power to suspend habeas corpus, even in times of war. The judges did not bother to hold Lincoln accountable for his public challenge.

And yet, a convinced Supreme Court of its mandate is a concept that the public now seems to accept to a large extent. Judges themselves have no formal enforcement tools except their own legitimacy contained in the power of words and ideas.

Breyer cites Bush v. Gore of 2000 who essentially entrusted the presidency to the republican.

"What was remarkable is that even though a lot of Americans thought it was wrong, and even if Breyer himself thought it was wrong, people followed him. Places, there would have been guns and bullets, no blood was shed after Bush v. Gore, is what makes America great. "