Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, INC., v. BENNETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS, et al., 1959 — 360 U.S. 471 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, INC., v. BENNETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS, et al.
360 U.S. 4713 L. Ed. 2d 1375·Supreme Court of the United States·1959
with whom The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Brennan concur, dissenting.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, INC., v. BENNETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS, et al.
No. 757.
Decided June 22, 1959.
Robert O. Carter.and Herbert O. Reid for appellant.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
When the validity of a state statute, challenged under the United States Constitution, is properly for adjudication before a United States District Court, reference to the state courts for construction of the statute should not automatically be made. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the ^Eastern District of Arkansas for consideration in light of Harrison v. N. A. A. C. P., ante, p. 167.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice Douglas,]
Mr. Justice Douglas,
with whom The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Brennan concur, dissenting.
While I agree that the case should be remanded to the District Court, I think that court should be directed to pass on the constitutional issues presented without prior reference to the state courts. My reasons are stated in my dissent in Harrison v. N. A. A. C. P., ante, p. 179.