2016/01/01 by Katy J. Harriger · 1 citation
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Social Sciences · #Legal and Constitutional Studies #Judicial and Constitutional Studies #Law, Rights, and Freedoms #Law #Supreme court #Argument (complex analysis) #Desegregation #Legitimacy #White supremacy #Constitutional interpretation #Political science #Sociology #Interpretation (philosophy) #Judicial review #Assertion #Law and economics #Philosophy #Racism #Politics
paper · doi:10.1017/s0034670516000346
openalex publication_date 2016/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Abstract 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.