Connection lost
Server error
Cooper v. Aaron Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Arkansas officials defied a federal court’s school desegregation order. The Supreme Court unanimously held that state officials are bound by the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, which is the “supreme Law of the Land,” and cannot nullify federal court orders.
Legal Significance: This case unequivocally established that state governments and officials are bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, reinforcing the principles of judicial supremacy and the Supremacy Clause against state resistance.
Cooper v. Aaron Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Little Rock, Arkansas School Board formulated a court-approved plan for gradual desegregation. In 1957, when nine African American students were set to enroll at Central High School, the Governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, deployed the Arkansas National Guard to block their entry. The Governor’s actions, along with legislative measures opposing desegregation, incited extreme public hostility and violence. This state-sponsored opposition created what the district court described as “chaos, bedlam and turmoil.” Citing these dangerous conditions, the School Board petitioned the federal district court for a two-and-a-half-year suspension of its desegregation plan, arguing that it was impossible to maintain a sound educational program. The district court granted the suspension. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the direct challenge by state officials to the authority of the federal judiciary.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Are state officials bound by the holdings of the United States Supreme Court, and can the constitutional rights of students be denied due to violent opposition directly resulting from the state’s own resistance to those rights?
Yes. The Court unanimously held that the School Board’s request to suspend Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod t
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Are state officials bound by the holdings of the United States Supreme Court, and can the constitutional rights of students be denied due to violent opposition directly resulting from the state’s own resistance to those rights?
Conclusion
This case serves as a landmark affirmation of judicial supremacy, establishing that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labori
Legal Rule
Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, the interpretation Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
Legal Analysis
In a rare opinion signed by all nine Justices, the Court forcefully Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deseru
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- State officials are bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the
