Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; April 27, 1959; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice, dissents regarding the United States Supreme Court's May 17, 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which mandated racial integration in public schools, claiming it to be unconstitutional and disruptive of long-standing social conditions in the South, including Arkansas. In response to this ruling, the Arkansas Legislature enacted Act No. 4 during a special session in 1958 to obstruct racial integration in schools. This case arises from a suit filed by Mrs. Garrett against Governor Orval E. Faubus, seeking to declare Act No. 4 unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Arkansas Constitution and the Federal Constitution. The Pulaski Chancery Court dismissed the complaint after sustaining a demurrer. On appeal, Mrs. Garrett contends that Act No. 4 violates only Article 14, while an amicus curiae brief argues violations of additional constitutional provisions. The appellee counters that Act No. 4 is valid under the state's police power. Justice McFaddin asserts that Act No. 4 contravenes Section 1 of Article 14 of the Arkansas Constitution and argues that police power cannot legitimize the Act's invalidity.
Act No. 4 grants the Governor the authority to close schools and call special elections in response to court-ordered racial integration, particularly if federal forces are involved. If the Governor closes a school, a subsequent election determines whether integration will proceed; if a majority votes against integration, the schools remain closed. The Act stipulates that any school closed under this authority stays closed until the Governor issues a countermanding proclamation.
The operation of schools in a district hinges on three key factors: (1) the Governor's decision to close the school and call for an election; (2) the majority's vote on the integration issue; and (3) the timing of the Governor's Proclamation for reopening schools. Act No. 4 stipulates that the ongoing maintenance of schools is contingent upon: (a) efforts toward integration; (b) a Proclamation from the Governor; and (c) a vote by the district's electors regarding integration.
The excerpt also examines the compatibility of Act No. 4 with Section 1 of Article 14 of the Arkansas Constitution, which mandates a continuous, efficient system of free schools for individuals aged six to twenty-one. The Constitution's language emphasizes that the state is required to maintain such a system, supported by various court cases interpreting this provision. Notably, Chief Justice Cockrill asserted that without schools, a school system cannot exist, emphasizing education as a legal right. Cases like Dickinson v. Edmondson and School Dist. No. 65 v. Banks further establish that free schooling must be provided without charge and that schools must operate continuously as per constitutional requirements. The overarching conclusion is that the state is constitutionally obligated to ensure the operation of free schools, and any statute must align with this mandate, focusing on the operation and effect of the schools rather than their form.
Act No. 4 permits indefinite school closures in Arkansas based on the threat of racial integration and allows local voting to decide when and how schools may reopen. However, Article 14 of the Arkansas Constitution does not grant the Governor or any individual the authority to close schools or implement such local options, indicating that Act No. 4 contravenes this constitutional provision. The argument posits that while the state has the right to modify public education policies following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Article 14 remains in effect until repealed by the people. Therefore, any legislation that contradicts this article, such as Act No. 4, is deemed unconstitutional.
The discussion on police power delineates three concepts: the state's reserved power, the inherent legislative power, and the emergency powers of the legislative or executive branches. The focus is on the second and third concepts, asserting that Act No. 4 cannot be justified under police power since such power is limited by the state constitution. The principle maintains that legislative actions cannot violate constitutional guarantees, regardless of changing circumstances. Relevant case law reinforces the notion that statutes infringing fundamental rights must be adjudicated against the constitutional framework, ensuring adherence to principles of due process and equal protection.
In Goldman v. Crowther, the Maryland Court of Appeals emphasized that police power has limits and cannot violate constitutional prohibitions. The Arkansas Legislature is restricted from enacting laws that contravene the Arkansas Constitution under the pretense of police power, particularly regarding the guarantee of maintaining schools as outlined in Section 1 of Article 14. The text argues that while emergency police powers allow for temporary measures in response to urgent situations, such as public health crises, they do not justify permanent closures of schools based on racial integration fears. The author critiques Act No. 4, asserting it improperly extends emergency powers beyond their intended scope, potentially affecting an entire generation of students. The claim is made that the Act violates the Arkansas Constitution by failing to maintain a general system of free schools. Additionally, the author expresses a desire to challenge the constitutionality of Brown v. Board of Education, suggesting it oversteps legislative authority and encroaches on state powers regarding education.
The argument centers on the interpretation of Article 14 of the Arkansas Constitution, specifically its mandate for the state to maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free schools. The appellant contends that any action to close schools, except for public safety reasons, contradicts this constitutional requirement. Judicial notice is taken of the Governor's proclamations in September 1958, which led to the indefinite closure of public senior high schools in the Little Rock School District following a vote against integration. The term "maintain" is defined as keeping schools open and operational, which the appellant argues is not being fulfilled. The appellant asserts that Amendment No. 44 does not repeal the obligations of Article 14 and that the authority to close schools is not granted to the Governor or any individual under the Constitution. Furthermore, the validity of Act No. 4 is challenged on the grounds that it allows indefinite school closures based on the threat of racial integration, violating Section 1 of Article 14. The argument concludes that despite changes in federal policy, the state must adhere to its constitutional provisions as they currently exist, rejecting the rationale that federal rulings should allow state actions contrary to state law.
Until the State of Arkansas repeals Article 14 of its Constitution, which mandates the maintenance of free schools, the court must adhere to this provision. Act No. 4 contravenes this constitutional guarantee, and while the repeal of Article 14 could potentially allow for school closures under similar legislation, until such repeal occurs, Act No. 4 is unconstitutional. The term "police power" encompasses at least three concepts: the reserved powers of the states, the inherent power of the state legislative department, and the emergency powers of the legislative or executive branches. The current case does not involve federal questions or the reserved powers of the state, as Act No. 4 is primarily unconstitutional under state law. The police power of the state legislature is constrained by the state constitution; any legislation must not violate constitutional rights, regardless of changing circumstances. Judicial precedent supports that statutes infringing on fundamental rights must be adjudicated against the constitution. Therefore, the Arkansas Legislature cannot enact laws that conflict with the state constitution under the pretense of exercising police power, as doing so would undermine constitutional protections.
The guaranty in Section 1 of Article 14 of the Arkansas Constitution mandates the maintenance of schools, which cannot be overridden by the Legislature under police powers, as such powers cannot contravene the state constitution. Emergency police powers allow for temporary legislation during genuine emergencies; however, laws enacted under this premise must apply specifically to such situations and expire once the emergency ends. In this case, the closure of schools under Act No. 4 is not temporary but permanent, aimed at addressing the ongoing threat of racial integration rather than a genuine emergency situation. This prolonged closure risks depriving an entire generation of education, violating the constitutional mandate for a general system of free schools.
Act No. 4 cannot be justified under emergency police powers as it addresses a condition that has persisted since the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which the author suggests could only be overturned through constitutional amendment or a new Supreme Court ruling. The author argues that the Arkansas Constitution explicitly requires the state to maintain schools, which Act No. 4 fails to do. Furthermore, the author expresses a desire to critique Brown v. Board of Education, claiming it encroaches on legislative powers and state authority over education. Ultimately, the argument centers on adherence to the Arkansas Constitution, asserting that the appellant's position relies on its clear language.
The interpretation of Article 14, Section 1 mandates that the State must maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free schools. Any legislation or action that leads to the closure of schools, unless for public peace, health, or safety, contradicts this requirement. The Court acknowledges the reasons behind the school closures, which stem from Proclamations issued by the Governor of Arkansas on September 12 and 16, 1958, resulting in the closure of public senior high schools in the Little Rock School District following a vote against integration. Since then, these schools have remained closed for an entire school year. The term "maintain," as defined by Webster’s Dictionary, implies support and the obligation not to allow failure or decline of the school system. Amendment No. 44 to the Arkansas Constitution does not expressly or impliedly repeal the requirement to maintain free schools, as implied repeals are not favored in legal interpretation. The argument could equally be made that Amendment No. 44 does not affect other constitutional articles, further reinforcing the obligation to uphold free public education. The lower court's decision should be reversed to support the complaint's request.
