Answer of Defendants to Application for Leave to Intervene and Motion to Defer Further Proceedings Made by The United States

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

LDF Attorney
- Lani Guinier
Cooperating Attorney
- Anthony G. Amsterdam
Organizations
- NYU School of Law
- LDF
Matter
- Bozeman v. Lambert
Case
- Bozeman v. Lambert
U.S. state
- Alabama
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- f94699a4-ee92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Answer of Defendants to Application for Leave to Intervene and Motion to Defer Further Proceedings Made by The United States, 1972. 1286ebed-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/7e71bf1d-df0a-4100-b6c2-d93804bc3675/answer-of-defendants-to-application-for-leave-to-intervene-and-motion-to-defer-further-proceedings-made-by-the-united-states. Accessed August 19, 2025.

Copied!

    #

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, 

v.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., 

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

Civil Action 
No. 35257

and
Defendant-Intervenor,

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al.,
Defendants-Intervenors,

et al.

ANSWER
OF DEFENDANT DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION AND 

OTHER DEFENDANTS TO APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE 
AND MOTION TO DEFER FURTHER PROCEEDINGS MADE BY THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

i

NOW COMES the Defendant School Board for the City of 
Detroit, and other Defendants, and in answer to the Application 
For Leave to Intervene by the United States of America and the 
Motion to Defer Further Proceedings made by the United States of 
America, the said Defendant takes no position, except to state that 
if the United States of America is permitted to intervene, it 
should intervene for all purposes, including the purpose of being 
subject to counter-claims on behalf of the Plaintiffs or Defendant^, 
as the case may be, for any monies expended as the result of any
remedial orders that may be issued by the Court.

Respectfully submitted,
RILEY AND ROUMELL

And;

Date: May 9, 1972,

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

Board of Education

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.

Interview/File Review Worksheet

LDF Attorney

Cooperating Attorney

Organizations

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in