In Defense of Cooper v. Aaron

In the debate about the legitimacy of judicial supremacy, Cooper v. Aaron , the Little Rock desegregation case, is identified by both sides as critical to their argument. Defenders insist that Cooper exemplifies the need for a final authority in matters constitutional. Critics argue that the Court was wrong as a matter of democratic theory or empirical reality. In this article I argue that while it is true as a matter of empirical reality that the Court's interpretation is not the final word, the Court's assertion can be defended nonetheless. Relying on archival sources from the case, I explore the conditions under which the Court made the claim. To defend Cooper, however, does not require the defense of all assertions of judicial supremacy. I conclude by offering a preliminary analysis of how we might distinguish between more legitimate assertions of judicial supremacy and less legitimate ones

Argument (complex analysis · Assertion · Constitutional Interpretation · Desegregation · Interpretation (philosophy · Judicial review · Law and economics · Legitimacy · Political science · Politics · Racism · Sociology · Supreme court · White supremacy · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Rights, and Freedoms · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Philosophy

• Who Shall Interpret? The Quest for the Ultimate Constitutional Interpreter

  Open Access•Walter F Murphy•The Review of Politics•1986

  Add to list