Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Plan

2 pages

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Impact area
- Education
Topic
- School Desegregation
Matter
- Milliken v. Bradley
Case
- Milliken v. Bradley
U.S. state
- Michigan
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- ee97aaaa-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0

Cite this item

Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Plan, 1972. ee97aaaa-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0abde7db-e718-49cf-955d-ad0426e0269e/motion-to-strike-plaintiffs-plan. Accessed December 06, 2025.

Copied!

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)
RONALD BRADLEY, et al, )

)
Plaintiffs, )

v. )
■ )

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al, )
)

Defendants, )
and ))
DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL ) 
#231, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,) 
AFL-CIO, )

)
Defendant-Intervenor, )

and )
)

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al, )
)

Defendants-Intervenor. )
______________ )

Civil Action 

No. 35257

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' PLAN

NOW COMES the Board of Education for the School District 

of the City of Detroit and other defendants, by their attorneys of 

record, George T. Roumell, Jr., Louis D. Beer and Riley and Roumell, 

move to strike Plaintiffs' Plan for the desegregation of the City of 

Detroit only for the reason that said Plan does not meet constitutional 

tests for the following reasons:

1. Said Plan is not educationally sound nor does it have 

educational value as required by the United States Supreme Court.

See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 

(1971).
2. Said Plan provides a mathematical racial mix contrary

to the requirements of Swann.



3. Said Plan does not consider the racial mix of the 

community; i.e., metropolitan community. See Swann, supra.

4. Said Plan provides for clear re-segregation contrary 

to the Constitution. See Bradley v. School Board of the City of 

Richmond, slip opinion at page 66. Also see Clark v. Board of,

.Education of Little Rock School District, 446 F.2d, 1035 (8th Cir. 

1970) and Lemon v. Bossier Parish School Board, 464 F.2d 911 (5th 

Cir.1971). Also see Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 at 
156 (1965).

Respectfully submitted,

RILEY AND ROUMELL

Louis D. Beer ....
720 Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: 962-8255

Date: March 21, 1972.

- 2-

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Plan

Impact area

Topic

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in