Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Ruling on Desegregation Area and Development of Plan

    IN T H S  U N I T E D  S T A T E S  COUNT  OF  A P P E A L S

F OR  T H S  S I XTH C I R C U I T  

NO,  7 2 - BOO 2

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., ' Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

WILLIAM 0 * MILLIKAN, et ai, Defendants- Appellants,

and

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS 
LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, . Defendant- Jhtervenor,

and . ...

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al., Defendants-Intervener.

On Appeal from the United States District: Court 
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

£ M C A G £ N C Y IVI O T IC  N O K T C M ? O R A R. Y 3 T A Y
P E NDI NG  D I S P O S I T I O N  B

D E F S N DA M T * S I M C K O A N C
y  t  h i s c  o  u a t  o  f  s t  a t  e
Y A P P L I C A T I ON F O R S T A Y

Now come defendants, William G. MiUiken, Governor of the State 

of Michigan, Frank J* Kelley, Attorney General of the State of Michigan; 

Michigan State Board of Education; John W , Porter, Superintendent of Public 

Instruction; and Allison Green, Treasurer of the State of Michigan, by their 

attorney, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, et al..



a»d pursuant to Rules S. and 27 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

a w e  this Court for immediate consideration of their emergency Motion For 

Temporary Stay Pending Disposition by this Court of State Defendants1 Emer­

gency Application for Stay; and said defendants further move this Court for 

entry of aa order temporarily staying pending hearing on these defendants* 

Emergency Application for Stay, the enforcement of the District Court’ s 

Order For Acquisition of Transportation, dated July 11, fg?2

l

Statement of Prior Proceedings

Os July i i ,  1972 the District Court entered an order requiring the 

Detroit Board of Education to acquire "by purchase, lease or other con­

tractual arrangement at least 2S5 buses for use in the interim desegregation 

pl&a during the 1972-73 school year,"  and such acquisition was to take place 

no later than July 13, 1072. See Appendix 0, Emergency Application for Stay. 

This same order provided that these defendants were to have "the sole finan­

cial obligation" lor the purchase of the buses.

On the same day that the above order was entered the District 

Court denied these defendants* motion for stay of the order. See Appendix 

E, Emergency Application for Stay. Thereafter on July 12, 1972 these de­

fendants filed their Notice of Appeal with the District Court and on this date, 

July 13, 1972, filed their Emergency Application for Stay with this Court.

As a result of such Emergency Application for Stay, this Court 

indicated that a three-judge panel would be convened on Monday, July 17,

1972 at 1:30 p.m. to hear the emergency Application, State office defendants, 

in light of the convening of the three-judge panel, presented to the District



-3-

Judge, the Honorable Stephan J. Roth, a Motion ior Temporary Stay Pending 

Disposition of State Defendant*© emergency Application for Stay by the Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit* The District Court was also advised that 

the three-Judge panel would be convened July 17, 1072 to hear Defendant’ s 

Emergency Application for -Stay. The Motion lor Temporary Stay was denied 

by the District Judge, for the following reasons:

1) Any delay would seriously jeopardise and delay integration 

in the fall 1972;

2) Sven it a reviewing court would disagree with Judge Roth, 

the Detroit School District is segregated and needs to be integrated, by means 

c f busing;

8) On the balance of equities no great harm is done to the de­

fendant© if. a. stay is not granted.

State officer defendants therefore seek a Temporary Stay from

this Court,

II

Leg&i Consicleration.3 lavolyed the Granting of a

In determining whether a stay of the District Court’ s order should 

be granted several factors should be considered. These factors include the 

probability of reversal on appeal, whether the denial of a stay will cause 

irreparable injury to the party seeking same, whether the granting of a stay 

will substantially harm the interests of the other parties, and whether a stay 

is in the public interest. Belcher y, Birmingham Trust Natkmai Bank, 3BS 

F 2d 685 CCA 5, 1368); Longv. Robinson, 432 F 2d 977 CCA 4, 1970).



State officers defendant believe that a consideration of ail 

these factors recommends the issuance oi a stay by this Court. The 

question of the probability of reversal upon appeal m treated at pages 6-24 

of the Emergency Application for Stay. Though State Office defendants believe 

there is a strong probability of reversal of the District Court on appeal, the ' 

truly important considerations in light of the short time period for which the 

stay is sought are whether plaintiff® will be substantially harmed by the 

granting of the stay, whether denial of the stay will cause irreparable injury 

to the state-officer defendants, and whether a stay is in the public interest.

Plaintiffs surely cannot argue that a stay for 4 days of the Order 

For Acquisition of Transportation will irreparably harm them. Buses that 

can be ordered on Thursday, July 13, 1072 can be ordered on Monday, July 

17, 1972. But if the hums must be acquired on this date, July 13, 1972, 

then these defendants who do not possess statutory authority or funds to par- 

form this function, will suffer irreparable harm If they are required to pur­

chase the buses at an estimated cost of three million dollar® and this Court 

determine® on Monday or at come later time that the order to acquire the 

buses was improper. .

The public interest in the proper expenditure of public funds and 

the orderly and temperate consideration of the issues In this case all argue 

in favor of this Court*® granting the Temporary Stay requested.

_ WHEREFORE, these defendants respectfully request that this

Court immediately consider this Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay 

Pending Disposition by this Court of State Defendants* Emergency Application



for Stay and enter an order temporarily staying the enforcement of the 

District Court8® order of July 11, 1372 pending Disposition of the 

Emergency Application for Stay.

Respectfully submitted,

FRANK J . KELL; 
Attorney General

Robert A , Derengoski 
Solicitor ̂ ener^F''

LugenA Krasicky 
Gerald F. Young 
Patrick Kowaieski 
Assistant Attorneys General

- Attorneys for Defendant® Governor, 
Attorney General, State Board of 
Education and Superintendent of Public 
instruct ioa