AARON ET AL.
v.
COOPER ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court denied a petition to expedite review of a district court order suspending a school desegregation plan in Little Rock, Arkansas that had been approved in 1956 and affirmed on appeal in 1957, holding that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was the proper forum to first consider the stay application and appeal and could act with sufficient promptness regarding the time-sensitive matter.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
On June 21, 1958, the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas entered an order authorizing the members of the School Board of Little Rock, Arkansas, and the Superintendent of Schools, to suspend until January 1961 a plan of integration theretofore approved by that court in August 1956, Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in April 1957. 243 F. 2d 361. On June 23, 1958, the District Court denied an application for a stay of execution of its order. An appeal was docketed in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 24, 1958, and there is pending in that court an application for a stay of the District Court’s order. By the present petition this Court is asked to bring the case here before the Court of Appeals has had an opportunity to act upon the petition for a stay or to hear the appeal. The power of the Court to do so has been exercised but rarely, and the issues and circumstances relevant to the present petition do not warrant its exercise now. The order that the District Court suspended has, in different postures, been before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit three times already. Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F. 2d 361; Thomason v. Cooper, 254 F. 2d 808 (April 28, 1958); Faubus v. United States, 254 F. 2d 797 (April 28, 1958). That court is the regular court for reviewing orders of the District Court here concerned, and the appeal and the petition for a stay are matters properly to be adjudicated by it in the first instance.
We have no doubt that the Court of Appeals will recognize the vital importance of the time element in this litigation, and that it will act upon the application for a stay or the appeal in ample time to permit arrangements to be made for the next school year..
Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is
Denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1958)…ime they filed a petition for certiorari in this Court asking us to review the District Court’s judgment without awaiting the disposition of their appeal to the Court of Appeals, or of their petition to that court for a stay. That we declined to do. 357 U. S. 566. The Court of Appeals did not act on the petition for a stay, but, on August 18, 1958, after convening in special session on August 4 and hearing the appeal, reversed the District Court, 257 F. 2d 33. On August 21, 1958, the Court of Appeals stayed…1 / 2
-
Walters v. Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1985)…); Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238 (1936); Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U. S. 330 (1935); United States v. Bankers Trust Co., decided together with Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 294 U. S. 240 (1935). Aaron v. Cooper, 357 U. S. 566, 567 (1958); see also Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1, 13 (1958). Section 3 provided in full: “No interlocutory or permanent injunction suspending or restraining the enforcement, operation, or execution of, or setting aside, in whole or in part, any…
Authorities Cited
- Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957)
- Orval E. Faubus v. United States (Amicus Curiæ, 254 F.2d 797 (8th Cir. 1958)
- Mrs. Clyde Thomason v. William G. Cooper, M.D., 254 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1958)