Making Our Democracy Work (39 page)

4.
Brown I
, 347 U.S. at 495–96 (stating that remedial questions would be addressed in a subsequent opinion after further argument);
Brown v. Board of Education
, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (
Brown II
).

5.
Brief for Appellants in Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and for Respondents in No. 5 on Further Reargument at 28–30,
Brown II
, 349 U.S. 294; Brief for the United States on the Further Argument of the Questions of Relief at 6, 22–29,
Brown II
, 349 U.S. 294;
id
. at 25. For a more detailed treatment of the executive branch’s participation as amicus curiae in
Brown II
, see David A. Nichols,
A Matter of Justice: Eisenhower and the Beginning of the Civil Rights Revolution
66–74 (2007).

6.
Brown II
, 349 U.S. at 299–301. See generally Paul Gewirtz,
Remedies and Resistance
, 92 Yale L.J. 585, 609–28 (1983) (discussing “all deliberate speed” and the Court’s efforts to factor white resistance into its remedial approaches in
Brown II
and subsequent cases).

7.
Nichols,
supra
note 5, at 118; Southern Manifesto, 102 Cong. Rec. 4515–16 (1965); Tony A. Freyer,
Little Rock on Trial:
Cooper v. Aaron
and School Desegregation
38–39 (2007).

8.
Klarman,
supra
note 1, at 154; Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 36–39, 68–73.

9.
Nichols,
supra
note 5, at 116–18; Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 29–30.

10.
Although the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first civil rights legislation Congress passed since 1875 (see Klarman,
supra
note 1, at 128), the bill that made it through the Senate was significantly weaker than the bill President Eisenhower proposed. See Nichols,
supra
note 5, at 143–68;
id
. at 112–15; Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 152.

11.
Nichols,
supra
note 5, at 66–69 (discussing school integration in the District of Columbia);
id
. at 118; Paul E. Wilson,
A Time to Lose: Representing Kansas in
Brown v. Board of Education 198–202 (1995); Daniel A. Farber,
The Supreme Court and the Rule of Law:
Cooper v. Aaron
Revisited
, 1982 U. Ill. L. Rev. 387, 392 (listing cities that issued statements of intent to comply with
Brown);
Virgil T. Blossom,
It Has Happened Here
9–24 (1959) (offering a first-person account of Little Rock’s preparations for compliance with
Brown
).

12.
Farber,
supra
note 11, at 392–93 (stating that Little Rock’s elected officials were “mostly moderates,” that the “city had little history of racial violence,” and that the public transportation had been desegregated before the events giving rise to
Cooper v. Aaron);
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 17–22 (discussing Little Rock’s reaction to a 1952 study decrying the conditions at black students’ schools and describing later reaction to the
Brown
decision); Blossom,
supra
note 11, at 11–12 (providing the Little Rock School Board’s May 1954 statement concerning
Brown
).

13.
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 27–28; see also
Cooper v. Aaron
, 358 U.S. 1, 8 (1958); Blossom,
supra
note 11, at 21–24.

14.
Aaron v. Cooper
, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956);
Aaron v. Cooper
, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957); Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 78–79 (discussing the selection of the Little Rock Nine).

15.
Cooper
, 358 U.S. at 8–9 (discussing the state constitutional amendments and legislation passed in Arkansas in the wake of
Brown);
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 80–81 (detailing the Capital Citizens’ Council protests against Little Rock’s desegregation plans).

16.
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 81; see also
id
. at 63–66 (discussing Faubus’s economically liberal policies and primary victory over his segregationist opponent);
id
. at 81–88, 98–99 (describing the pressure placed on Faubus);
id
. at 99–112 (discussing the reasons that Faubus ultimately chose to defy federal authority).

17.
Nichols,
supra
note 5, at 170; Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 90–112 (discussing rising political pressure in Little Rock leading up to integration);
id
. at 105 (describing Faubus’s public comments);
id
. at 90 (quoting threats aimed at Bates).

18.
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 104–6, 108.

19.
Id
. at 112–13.

20.
Id
. at 114.

21.
Id
. at 115.

22.
Id
. Will Counts, at the time a twenty-six-year-old photographer for the
Arkansas Democrat
, took the famous photograph of Eckford. See
Will Counts, 70; Noted for Little Rock Photo
, New York Times, Oct. 10, 2001, at D8. The photograph and numerous other pictures Counts shot of the events surrounding the integration of the Little Rock schools can be found in his book
A Life Is More Than a Moment: The Desegregation of Little Rock’s Central High
(2007).

23.
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 115–16, 119–20.

24.
Nichols,
supra
note 5, at 176–83.

25.
Id
. at 182–83, 186–87.

26.
Id
. at 189–91.

27.
Id
. at 67.

28.
Id
. at 186. For a discussion of Eisenhower’s reservations about expanding federal authority over traditional state functions, see
id
. at 141, 153–55, 176; and Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 41–46.

29.
Nichols,
supra
note 5, at 198 (recounting Eisenhower’s belief, detailed in a presidential address, that “the overwhelming majority of the people in the South—including those of Arkansas and of Little Rock—are of good will, united in their efforts to preserve and respect the law even when they disagree with it”).

30.
Id
. at 136; Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 42.

31.
Nichols,
supra
note 5, at 6 (describing Eisenhower’s youth in Abilene, Kansas);
id
. at 8–13 (discussing Eisenhower’s experience with black soldiers during World War II);
id
. at 42–43 (discussing Eisenhower’s desegregation of the armed forces);
id
. at 34–40 (discussing Eisenhower’s desegregation of federal contracting);
id
. at 26–29, 33–34, 40–41, 66–69 (discussing the desegregation of the District of Columbia). But see Alan L. Gropman,
The Air Force Integrates, 1945–1964
149–53 (1985) (describing Eisenhower’s approach to civil rights as “passive”); Everett Frederic Morrow,
Black Man in the White House: A Diary of the Eisenhower Years by the Administrative Officer for Special Projects, the White House, 1955–1961
298–300 (1963) (describing Eisenhower’s stand on civil rights as “lukewarm”). See also
Report: Tuskegee Airmen Lost 25 Bombers
, USA Today, Apr. 1, 2007.

32.
Nichols,
supra
note 5, at 191–96 (describing Eisenhower’s decision to send federal troops to Little Rock).

33.
Id
. at 192.

34.
Id
. at 195.

35.
Id
. at 197, 199.

36.
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 133; Blossom,
supra
note 11, at 120–24.

37.
Nichols,
supra
note 5, at 200.

38.
Id
. at 202, 212–13; Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 138–40.

39.
Nichols,
supra
note 5, at 222.

40.
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 142–44;
Aaron v. Cooper
, 163 F. Supp. 13, 17–21, 28 (E.D. Ark. 1958).

41.
Cooper
, 163 F. Supp. at 32;
Aaron v. Cooper
, 257 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1958),
cert. granted
, 358 U.S. 1 (1958); Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 151.

42.
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 152–57.

43.
Id
. at 169–70, 175;
Cooper v. Aaron
, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

44.
Cooper
, 358 U.S. at 4, 18.

45.
Marbury v. Madison
, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (emphasis added);
Cooper
, 358 U.S. at 18.

46.
Cooper
, 358 U.S. at 19. For an extensive discussion of the opinion-drafting process in
Cooper v. Aaron
, see Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 169–201; and Tony A. Freyer, Cooper v. Aaron
(1958): A Hidden Story of Unanimity and Division
, 33 J. Sup. Ct. Hist. 89 (2008).

47.
Cooper
, 358 U.S. at 15;
id
. at 6.

48.
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 174–75.

49.
Cooper
, 358 U.S. at 6 (citing
Brown II
, 349 U.S. at 300–301);
id
. at 4–7;
id
. at 25–26 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

50.
Id
. at 19–20 (emphasis added); Gewirtz,
supra
note 6, at 627–28, 676–77, 681.

51.
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 203.

52.
Id
. at 205–7.

53.
Id
. at 208–9.

54.
Id
. at 203–4; Gary Smith,
Blindsided by History
, Sports Illustrated, Apr. 9, 2007.

55.
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 232; see also Smith,
supra
note 54.

56.
Freyer,
supra
note 7, at 205; Jack Bass & Walter De Vries,
The Transformation of Southern Politics: Social Change and Political Consequence Since 1945
89–90 (1995).

57.
Felicia R. Lee,
Return to a Showdown at Little Rock
, New York Times, Sept. 25, 2007; American Youth Policy Forum,
Expanding Advanced Placement Participation and Building Public Will in Little Rock, AR
www.aypf.org/tripreports/2007/TR110707.htm
(accessed Jan. 28, 2010).

1.
Cf. Roe v. Wade
, 410 U.S. 113 (1973);
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
, 505 U.S. 833 (1992);
Wallace v. Jaffree
, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

2.
Bush v. Gore
, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

3.
U.S. Const. amend. XII; U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; Fla. Stat. § 103.011 (2000).

4.
Bush
, 531 U.S. at 100–101.

5.
Id
. at 112–22 (Scalia, J., concurring) (expressing concern that the Florida Supreme Court had established a system for appointment of electors, in contravention of U.S. Const. art. II, § 1’s requirement that the state legislature do so);
id
. at 110 (“[I]t is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work”).

6.
Id
. at 158 (Breyer, J., dissenting). I agreed with the majority, however, that there should be a uniform standard for all counties.

7.
The author was present to hear Senator Reid’s remarks.

1.
Cf. Maryland v. Craig
, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (holding that a child witness may testify via closed-circuit television);
Crawford v. Washington
, 541 U.S. 36, 56 n. 6 (2004) (considering whether the use of a dying statement in a criminal prosecution violates the Sixth Amendment).

2.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
, 343 U.S. 579, 634 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).

3.
U.S. Const. amend. II (emphasis added). See James Lindgren,
Fall from Grace: “Arming America” and the Bellesiles Scandal
, 111 Yale L.J. 2195 (2002) (describing the controversy surrounding Michael Bellesiles’s book
Arming America
).

4.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 1, amended by U.S. Const. amend. XVII, § 1; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

5.
See, e.g.,
Giles v. California
, No. 07–6053, slip. op. (U.S. June 25, 2008) (admitting into evidence the unconfronted testimony of the murder victim under a doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing).

6.
Gordon S. Wood,
Empire of Liberty
457 (2009).

7.
Learned Hand,
The Spirit of Liberty: Papers and Addresses of Learned Hand
120 (1959).

8.
Federalist 51 (James Madison) (emphasis added).

9.
Plessy v. Ferguson
, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

10.
Ken Gormley,
Archibald Cox: Conscience of a Nation
46 (1999).

11.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
A Tribute to Sandra Day O’Connor
, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 1239, 1244 (2006).

12.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 2;
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

1.
Ségolène de Larquier,
La SNCF en fait baver aux escargots
, Le Point, Apr. 6, 2008;
Escargots sans billet: La SNCF va rembourser le propriétaire verbalisé
, La Dépêche, June 4, 2008.

2.
Cf. Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
, 552 U.S. 214 (2008) (emphasis added).

3.
Einer R. Elhauge, Interpreting Statutes: Ordinary English, Canons, and Conventions (Feb. 29, 2008) (unpublished manuscript on file with author).