Plaintitff's Response to Emergency Motion
Public Court Documents
December 7, 1972

3 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Plaintitff's Response to Emergency Motion, 1972. 45e5b4b8-53e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/004c45e4-2c16-4cfb-902a-efc6a47700ba/plaintitffs-response-to-emergency-motion. Accessed June 17, 2025.
Copied!
t IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RONALD BRADLEY, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, V . WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., ) ) )Defendants, ) CIVIL ACTION and ) ) NO. 35257 DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, ) LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION ) OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, ) ) ) ) Defendant Intervenor, fand ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al., Defendant-Intervenor. et al. PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION OF DEFENDANT DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, hereby respond to the Emergency Motion of Defendant Detroit Board of Education which is scheduled for hearing on December 11, 1972. The defendants have stated that there is an emergency matter upon which this Court must act. However, plaintiffs respectfully submit that no such emergency exists. Plaintiffs concur in the proposition that the responsibility for maintaining the educational program pursuant to the requirements of law and the orders of this Court within the city of Detroit is the obligation of all defendants, including the state defendants. Plaintiffs further agree that the constitutional rights of all school children in Detroit would be violated if the state were t to provide less education for these pupils than that available in other districts of the state. However, the only emergency requiring the ac tion of this Court to enforce its prior order is an emergency created by the Detroit Board by their November 8th resolution to close school beginning December 21st. In short, the Detroit Board, as one of the defendants, was in the position of advising the Court that they inten ded to breach this Court's order. Plaintiffs are now ad vised that as of December 5, 1972, the Detroit Board has rescinded its resolution of December 8th, and, therefore, the emergency, if any, created by the Detroit Board's "anticipatory breach," no longer exists. Moreover, we are informed that leaders of the Michigan legislature axe planning to take action in compliance with what plain tiffs perceive as their duty, to assist the other defen dants in complying with this Court's orders. We are advised that the state defendants, in compliance with their obligation under the order, have previously agreed to advance the Detroit Board approxi mately 20 million dollars, a sum sufficient to keep the schools in operation at least through March, and there is no reason to assume that any defendant would there after violate this Court's orders or their own constitu tional obligations. The actions to date indicate a recog nition by the State Board of Education and other state defendants of their constitutional obligations and their specific obligations with respect to this Court's order. We have not been, and are not now, prepared to assume that the state defendants will disobey the law or the in junctive order of this Court. Plaintiffs, therefore, respectfully submit that the defendant Board's motion should be denied, or, in the alternative, since there is clearly no immediate indica- cation that this Court's order will not be obeyed, that 2 ♦ the motion should be held in abeyance until the factual situation warrants action by the Court. Respectfully submitted, J. HAROLD FLANNERY PAUL R. DIMOND ROBERT PRESSMAN Center for Law & Education Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts LOUIS R. LUCAS WILLIAM E. CALDWELL RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS 525 Commerce Title Building Memphis, Tennessee 38103 E. WINTHER McCROOM 3245 Woodburn Ave. Cincinnati, Ohio NATHANIEL JONES General Counsel N.A.A.C.P. 1790 Broadway New York, New York 10019 JACK GREENBERG NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Response To Emergency Motion of Defendant Detroit Board of Education has been served upon all coun sel of record, either by hand delivery or U.S. mail, post age prepaid, this 7th day of December, 1972. WILLIAM E. CALDWELL - 3 -