Aaron v. Cooper, 15675.

• Decision Date: 26 April 1957
• Docket Number: No. 15675.,15675.
• Citation: 243 F.2d 361
• Parties: John AARON, a Minor, and Thelma Aaron, a Minor, by Their Mother and Next Friend, (Mrs.) Thelma Aaron, a Feme Sole, et al., Appellants, v. William G. COOPER, M. D., as President of Board of Trustees, Little Rock Independent School District, et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

243 F.2d 361 (1957)

John AARON, a Minor, and Thelma Aaron, a Minor, by Their Mother and Next Friend, (Mrs.) Thelma Aaron, a Feme Sole, et al., Appellants, v. William G. COOPER, M. D., as President of Board of Trustees, Little Rock Independent School District, et al., Appellees.

No. 15675.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

April 26, 1957.

Wiley A. Branton, Pine Bluff, Ark., and Robert L. Carter, New York City (U. S. Tate, Dallas, Tex., and Thurgood Marshall, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.

Leon B. Catlett and A. F. House, Little Rock, Ark. (Richard C. Butler, Frank E. Chowning and Henry Spitzberg, Little Rock, Ark., on the brief), for appellees.

Before WOODROUGH, VOGEL and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judges.

VOGEL, Circuit Judge.

Appellants are Negro children attending the public schools of Little Rock, Arkansas. They brought this action in their own behalf and in behalf of all other Negro minors similarly situated. Appellees are the Little Rock School District, a corporation, the president and secretary of its board, and the superintendent of public schools for Little Rock. On February 8, 1956, appellants filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, asking that the court define their legal rights and that an injunction be issued against continued segregation of the races in the Little Rock public school system. The case was tried to the court and taken under advisement. A very comprehensive opinion was filed by the trial court incorporating therein findings of fact and conclusions of law as provided for by Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. In that opinion, the District Court held that a proposed school integration plan had been promulgated by the appellees in good faith, that "the plan which has been adopted after thorough and conscientious consideration of the many questions involved is a plan that will lead to an effective and gradual adjustment of the problem, and ultimately bring about a school system not based on color distinctions". 143 F. Supp. 866. The court held that the adoption of the plan had been prompt and that "it would be an abuse of discretion for this court to fail to approve the plan or to interfere with its consummation so long as the defendants move in good faith, as they have done since immediately after the decision of May 17, 1954, to inaugurate and make effective a racially nondiscriminatory school system". The District Court approved the plan but retained jurisdiction of the case "* * * for the entry of such other and further orders as may be necessary to obtain the effectuation of the plan as contemplated and set forth herein".

The school integration plan of the appellees for the integration of the public schools in Little Rock is stated in entirety in the District Court's opinion published in 143 F.Supp. 855, 859-860. It is accordingly unnecessary to give the details of the plan here. In substance, it is a three-phase program of integration. Phase 1 begins at the senior high school level (grades 10-12) and is scheduled to start in the fall of 1957 upon the completion of a new senior high school building. Phase 2 begins at the junior high school level (grades 7-9) and would start following successful integration at the senior high school level (estimated at two to three years). Phase 3 begins at the elementary level (grades 1-6) and would start after successful completion of phases 1 and 2. Complete integration is planned to be effected not later than 1963.

In this appeal, all parties recognize the mandate of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873, as "* * * declaring the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional * * *." Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1955, 349 U.S. 294, 298, 75 S.Ct. 753, 755, 99 L.Ed. 1083. In that decision the "separate but equal" doctrine in the field of public education was put to rest. It is on the second and implementing decision of the Supreme Court on this subject that the controversy here centers. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1955, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753. The core of the second Brown decision is that, 349 U.S. at page 299, 75 S.Ct. at page 756:

"Full implementation of these constitutional principles may require solution of varied local school problems. School authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving these problems; courts will have to consider whether the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles."

What is required is that the local courts, in passing on the plans of school authorities and formulating their decrees, give weight to certain equitable principles and administrative problems, while at the same time requiring a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with the original Brown decision declaring segregated schools inherently unconstitutional. The court stated, 349 U.S. at page 300, 75 S.Ct. at page 756:

"Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner. The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the

...