Groseclose v. Dutton Brief for Amicus Curiae
Public Court Documents
August 28, 1986
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene, 1972. 583ac90c-53e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/1bb05ae5-ae92-4f02-81a1-1ef74ce17662/memorandum-in-support-of-motion-to-intervene. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
O
[ -*
u
tup Ur. •i"* n U r r ^ r* - ^ r r i n r s T A n %r ' T*
ilD SaAaES nibiiVlOA LUUAi i'UA A
r? a o r;'1 v? * * *\T T ' T C r CF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
■p A 7 n TP 73* A r - 7 W <- 1iD iN x* —i i i 1 ^ C -c - • j )
*>
)
Plaintiffs, )
\
v .
WILLIAM G . MILLIREN , et ai . ,
)
)
\
;
)
MEMORANDUM IN
SLT̂ ?CilT 0?
MOTION TO
Defendants
)
)
N
INTERVENE
DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
LOCAL #231, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,
)
\
J
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
NO . O52o7
Defendant-
Intervenor
/
)
)
)
)
*\/•A , o t *-•-"vr ,7O ^ r T /a.-!- o l
i-»-> ll* u> i\ .L . j C <a- -*- • >
J
)
\
Defendants-
Intervener.
/
)
)
)
Section 902 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.3.C. 2000h-2) and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure authorize the Attorney General to inter
vene in this action as of right. H.R. Rep. No. 9i45 88tn
Cong.3 1st Sess. 22 (1963); 110 Cong. Rec. 2256-61,
2278-69 (1964); (House Debate) 110 Cong. Rec. 13464-67,
13905-6, 13901-2 (1964); (Senate Debate); Slnvleton v.
>n Municipal Separate School Piis trie it al. , 348
F .2d 729 (5th Cir., 1965), Lexer v. Dossier Parish School,
Heard, 240 ?. Su?p. 709, 715 (W.D. La. 1965).
Although an application to intervene must be
timely, that determination is a matter within the
sound discretion of the trial court. Diaz v. Southern
brillir.g Coro., 427 F .2d 1118 (5th Cir., 1970); Moore
v. -Tangipahoa Parish School Board, 298 F. Supp. 288
(E.D„ La., 1969); McDonald v. E.J. Lavino Co., 430 F.2d
1065 (5th Cir., 1970); Smith Petroleum Service. Inc, v.
Monsanto Chemical Co., 420 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir., 1970);
3B J. Moore, Federal Practice, Sec. 24.13[1j (1969).
Here the Attorney General's application was filed six
cays after the President's message to Congress in which
he proposed significant legislation relevant to the
relief in this case and directed the Justice Department
seek intervention in selected cases.
But minus the argument of timely application pur-
nt to Congress ional interest, "timeliness is not
olute and should be evaluated in the light of all
'cians tances." Atkins v. State Board of Education of
North Carolina, 418 F.2d 874 (4th Cir., 1969). Indeed,
it has been held that timeliness in the case of inter
vention of right is limited to the question of prejudice.
McDonald v. E.J. Lavino Co., supra. And where an
applicant may intervene as of right, the court will
exercise its discretion in denying with greater reluctance,
Diaz, sunra, at 1126; J. Moore, supra, at 24.13[1].
2
Conclusion
For the above reasons, it is requested that
the Attorney General*s motion to intervene be
granted.
Respectfully submitted,
j>& a P
DAVID L. NORMAN
Assistant Attorney General