Motion for Implementation of Plaintiffs' Desegregation Plan with Modifications

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., ]
Plaintiffs ]

CIVIL ACTION
VS ]

NO. 35257
WILLIAM G, MILLIKEN, et al., ]

Defendants ]

MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAINTIFFS' 
DESEGREGATION PLAN, WITH APPROPRIATE UPDATING MODIFICATIONS

Plaintiffs, by undersigned Counsel, respectfully 
move the Court to enter an order requiring the State and 
Detroit Board defendants to forthwith take all such preli­
minary steps as may be necessary to prepare for the imple­
mentation of Plaintiffs' Plan of school desegregation, with
such updated modifications as are necessary and appropriate, 
at the earliest practicable date and in no event later than 
the start of the second semester of the current school year.

In support of this Motion, plaintiffs would show 
the Court as follows:

1. In Its July 25, 1974 opinion and judgment, 
the Supreme Court remanded this case "for further pro­
ceedings consistent with this opinion leading to prompt 
formulation of a decree directed to eliminating the segre­
gation found to exist in Detroit city schools...." Milliken 
v. Bradley, 42 U.S.L.W. 5249, 5260. See also Carter v.
West Feliciana Parish School Board, 296 U.S. 290 (1970); 
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S.
19 (1969).

2. Three plans of pupil desegregation limited
to the corporate limits of the City of Detroit have previously 
been proposed to and considered by this Court. Two plans 
prepared and submitted by the Detroit Board defendants (Plan 
A and Plan C) were rejected in this Court's March 28, 1972 
"Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Detroit-Only



because they do not promise to effect significant desegre­
gation." Plaintiffs' proposed plan of desegregation, 
referred to as the Foster Plan or Plaintiffs' Plan, was 
found by the Court to be capable of "accomplish[ing] more 
desegregation than now obtains in the system, or would be 
achieved under Plan A or Plan C." Plaintiffs' Plan is 
thus the only meaningful plan of desegregation capable of 
prompt implementation presently of record. United States 
v. Board of Education of Baldwin County, 423 F.2d 1013 
•(5th Cir. 1970). Although relatively minor updating modi­
fications of the Plan will be necessary, the Plan is readily 
susceptible to second-semester implementation if defendants 
are promptly ordered to forthwith "take"all necessary
clerical and administrative steps —  such as determining

//
new student assignments, bus routes and athletic schedules 
and preparing for any necessary physical changes —  prepa- 
tory to complete conversion under the [Plan by commencement 
of the second semester]." Carter v. West Feliciana Parish 
School Board, 396 U.S. 226, 227 (1969).

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs 
respectfully pray that an order be entered’ requiring the 
State and Detroit Board defendants to take all steps

9

necessary for implementation of Plaintiffs' Plan, modified 
as necessitated by changed circumstances, by the start of 
the second semester of the 1974-75 school year.

LOUIS R. LUCAS
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

PAUL R. DIMOND
520 Woodward Building 
733 15th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20005

NATHANIEL R. JONES 
1790 Broadway 
New York, New York 10019



# #

Washington, D.C. 20005
JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

ELLIOTT HALL
950 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

September, 1974 I served copies of the foregoing Motion 
upon counsel for defendants herein by depositing same in
the U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid.

LOUIS R. LUCAS

?J

- 3-