Letter RE: Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition

    R O B E R T  E .  MC KEA N 
E D G A R  C .  H O W B E R T  
R . W I L L I A M  R O G E R S  
T .  D O N A L D  W AD E  
C H A R L E S  R .  M O O N  
B . C O U R T N E Y  RA N K IN  
W I L L IA M  G.  L E R C H E N ,  J R .  
E R N E S T  G E T 2  
W. G E R A L D  W A R R E N  
B E N J A M I N  O .  S C H W E N D E N E R ,  J R .  
M I L T O N  M . T H O M P S O N  
W AR D  R A N O O L ,  J R .
R U S S E L L  A .  M c N A I R ,  J R .
G E O R G E  B . MARTIN- ,  J R .  
H E R B E R T  G .  S P A R R O W ,  III 
J U D S O N  W E R B E L O W  
J O H N  R.  A X E  
J O H N  A .  E V E R H A R D U S  
R O B E R T  V.  P E T E R S O N  
P E T E R  S.  S H E L D O N  
J O Y C E  Q .  L O W E R  
T H O M A S  G.  KI EN  BA UM  
L A W R E N C E  G . C A M P B E L L  
C H A R L E S  T .  H A R R I S  
R O B E R T  F. M A G I L L ,  J R .
K E N N E T H  J .  M c l N T Y R E

D I C K I N S O N ,  W R I G H T ,  M c K E A N  & C U D U P

W IL LI A M  B . C U D L I P  
A U G U S T U S  C .  L E D Y A R D  
J O H N  G .  G A R L I N G H O U 5 E  
W IL LIA M A . W A L K E R  
D O N A L D  R. F L I N T E R M A N N  
D A N I E L  J .  T I N D A L L ,  J R .  
F R E D  W.  F R E E M A N  
F R E D E R I C K  K-  P L U M B  
PAT RI CK  J .  L E D W I D G E  
G E O R G E  E .  M c K EA N  
V E R N E  C . H A M P T O N , I I  
C H A R L E S  F. C L I P P E R T  
L A W R E N C E  M.  KE LLY  
J O H N  E .  S .  S C O T T  
J O H N  C .  O ’M E A R A  

J O H N  A .  K R S U L ,  J R .  
D O U G L A S  D .  R O C H E  
T H O M A S  E . O W E N  
E D G A R  C .  H O W B E R T ,  J R .  
R O B E R T  S .  K R A U S E  
R O B E R T  P. H U R L B E R T  
WI LLI A M F. BAVI  N G E R , III 
J . T H O M A S  C A R R O L L , J R .  
R AL P H  S .  R U M S E Y  
J A M E S  N.  C A N D L E R ,  JR .

C O U N S E L L O R S  A T  L A W

1700 NORTH WOODWARD AVENUE 

P. O. BOX 5 0 9

B L O O M F I E L D  H I L L S ,  M ' C H I G A N  418013

T E L E P H O N E  ( 3 1 3 )  6 4 5 - 4 3 0 0

July 12, 1972

C L A U D E  H .  S T E V E N S  
O F  C O U N S E L  

E D W A R D  L.  W E B E R

D E T R O I T  O F F I C E  

8 0 0  F I R S T  N A T I O N A L  B U I L D I N G  

D E T R O I T ,  M I C H I G A N  4 - 3 2 2 6  

T E L E P H O N E  ( 3 1 3 )  9 6 2 - 5 8 6 0

L A N S I N G  O F F I C E  

117 W E S T  A L L E G A N  S T R E E T  

L A N S I  N G  , M I C H I G A N  4 - 8 9 3 3  

T E L E P H O N E  ( 5 1 7 )  3 7 1 - 1 7 3 0

The Honorable Judges of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

609 Post Office Building 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Re: No. 72-1651, Bloomfield Hills School District,
Petitioner, v. Honorable Stephen J. Roth, 
United States District Judge, Eastern District 
of Michigan, Respondent .

Dear Sirs:

On June 29, 1972, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus 
and/or Prohibition of Bloomfield Hills School District was 
docketed by the Clerk_of your Court. The Petition relates to 
the June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order of the Honorable Stephen J. 
Roth, Respondent to such Petition, in the so-called Detroit 
school desegregation case (Bradley, et al. v. Milliken, et al., 
Civil Action No. 35257, United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Michigan). In compliance with Rule 21, 
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a copy of such June 14, 
1972 Ruling and Order is attached to the Petition.

Thereafter, on July 10, 1972, Judge Roth entered an 
oral Order directing the Detroit School District to purchase 
295 buses for the purpose of implementing his June 14, 1972 
Ruling and Order. The State defendants in Bradley v. Milliken, 
namely, the Governor and Attorney General of Michigan, the State 
Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public In­
struction, were ordered to pay for such buses. To implement 
such payment, the Treasurer of Michigan was added as an addi­
tional State defendant.



• #
^ D I C K I N S O N ,  W R I G H T ,  M C K E A N  & C U D L I P

The Honorable Judges of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

July 12, 1972 
Page Two

The bus purchase order further evidences Judge Roth's 
intention to put his June 14, 1972 metropolitan desegregation 
busing order into effect as of the opening of school the first 
week in September, less than 60 days from now.

During the course of the hearing preceding the entry 
of Judge Roth's bus purchase order, he candidly stated as 
follows:

"To my knowledge the propriety of going 
to a metropolitan plan has not been decided 
by the United States Supreme Court except in 
the language used in Brown in 1954, where 
they in broad outline said you can do anything 
in order to achieve the job including dealing 
with school districts. They said that in '54.
That is what I am relying on and they never 
said otherwise but they never have had a 
school case such as this where an order for 
metropolitan desegregation is the issue."
The entry of the bus purchase order underscores the 

urgency of immediate consideration by this Court of Bloomfield 
Hills School District's Petition. Accordingly, we respectfully 
request this Court to take such Petition under immediate advise­
ment, to enter an order directing Judge Roth to answer such Pe­
tition immediately, and to set a date for hearing on the Petition 
as soon as possible thereafter. In this connection, we reiterate 
the prayer contained in the Petition that, in the interim, a stay 
of the proceedings contemplated by Judge Roth's June 14, 1972 
Ruling and Order be entered.

Respectfully submitted,
DICKINSON, WRIGHT, McKEAN & CUDLIP

Fred W. Freeman



• •
D I C K I N S O N ,  W R I G H T ,  M c K E A N  & C U D L I P

The Honorable Judges of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

July 12, 1972 
Page Three

Robert V. Peterson 
Attorneys for Petitioner

Bloomfield Hills School District

FWF:mak

*