AARON et al. v. COOPER et al., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
No. 1095.
Decided June 30, 1958.
Thurgood Marshall, Wiley A. Branton, Constance Baker Motley and Jack Greenberg for petitioners.
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.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.