The U.S. Supreme Court case Aaron et al. v. Cooper et al., 1957, revolved around the issue of school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas following the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision which declared segregation unconstitutional in 1954. The local school board had proposed a gradual plan for integration starting with high schools and progressing to lower grades over several years; however, this was met with significant resistance from some community members leading to violent protests and intervention by state troops ordered by Governor Orval Faubus to block nine black students' entry into Central High School (known as "Little Rock Nine"). In response, federal courts ruled that such delays were unacceptable and mandated immediate desegregation efforts. In this case before the Supreme Court, parents of African American children argued against further delay while white citizens sought continued postponement citing concerns about public safety due to ongoing unrest related to forced integration attempts. The court unanimously sided with plaintiffs (parents of African American students), reaffirming its commitment towards enforcing Brown's mandate without delay or obstruction despite potential social upheaval it might cause locally or nationally - effectively asserting supremacy of federal law over state actions contrary thereto regarding civil rights issues.

In the dissenting opinion for Aaron et al. v. Cooper et al., Justice Felix Frankfurter argued that the Supreme Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by intervening in a local school board's decision to delay desegregation. He contended that while Brown v Board of Education had established desegregation as constitutional law, it did not provide specific timelines or methods for implementation, leaving these details up to local authorities under "all deliberate speed." Therefore, he believed the Little Rock School Board was within its rights to postpone integration due to concerns about potential violence and disruption. Frankfurter also expressed concern about undermining respect for judicial process if courts were seen as coercive rather than interpretative bodies. He emphasized his belief in gradualism and patience when implementing social change through legal means.