Letter from Krasicky to Hanssen RE: Defendants' Answer to Evidence Complaint with Certificate of Service
Public Court Documents
November 1, 1973

8 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Letter from Krasicky to Hanssen RE: Defendants' Answer to Evidence Complaint with Certificate of Service, 1973. 22855ae3-53e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5dbbbcf8-bf1e-4a72-9f89-52e4af64d830/letter-from-krasicky-to-hanssen-re-defendants-answer-to-evidence-complaint-with-certificate-of-service. Accessed April 27, 2025.
Copied!
STATE OF MICHIGAN D E P A R T M E N T O F ATTORNEY GENERAL LANSING. MICHIGAN November 1, 1973 Mr. Henry R. Hanssen, Clerk United States District Court 133 U.S. Courthouse Detroit, Michigan 48226 Re: Bradley, et al v Milliken, et al Civil Action No. 35257 Enclosed please find State Officer Defendants* Answer to Plaintiffs* Amended Complaint to Conform to Evidence and Certificate of Service in the above entitled cause for filing. Dear Sir: Very truly yours FRANK J. KELLEY Attorney General Assistant Attorney General EK: hb Enc. cc: All Counsel of Record 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, ALLEN PARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al, GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SOUTHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ROYAL OAK, KERRY GREEN, et al MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL OF VAN DYKE, Defendants-Intervehors,and Civil Action No. 35257 WAYNE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al, Added Defendants. / STATE OFFICER DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE Now come defendants, William G. Milliken, Governor of the State of Michigan, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, Michigan State Board of Education, John W. Porter, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Allison Green, Treasurer of the State of Michigan, hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as the state officer defendants, by their attorneys, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Eugene Krasicky and Gerald F. Young, Assistant Attorneys General, and make their answer to plaintiffs' amended complaint, as further amended by plaintiffs' memorandum of September 21, 1973, to all counsel of record, respectfully representing to this Honorable Court as follows: 1. The state officer defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, as a partial listing of prior proceedings and decisions herein, with the exception that the state officer defendants affirmatively assert that the correct citations are 438 F2d 945 (CA 6, 1971), and 338 F Supp 582 (ED Mich, 1971) , and further affirmatively assert that the Ruling on Desegregation Area and Development of Plan, dated June 14, 1972, was vacated en banc, "except as herein above prescribed," as set forth in ___ F2d ___ (June 12, 1973), and further affirmatively assert that the correct date of the Ruling on Propriety of a Metropolitan Remedy is March 24, 1972, not June 12, 1973. 2. The allegations in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs' amended complaint are conclusions of law requiring no answer. 3. State officer defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 3 of plaintiffs' amended complaint and leave plaintiffs to their proof. State officer defendants hereby incorporate by reference the entirety of their original answer in this cause, dated October 13, 1970, as though set forth verbatim herein. A copy is attached herewith as Exhibit A. j 4. The state officer defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiffs' amended complaint. - 2- 5. The state officer defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiffs' amended complaint. 6. The state officer defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of plaintiffs' amended complaint. 7. The state officer defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, except that they deny the validity of the characterization of such parties as "suburban defendants." 8. The state officer defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiffs' amended complaint. 9. The state officer defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, except that they deny the validity of the characterization of such parties as "suburban defendants." 10. The state officer defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, except state officer defendants admit that the actions of the suburban defendants have not been a causal factor with reference to the pupil composition by race, of the schools in Detroit and all other defendant school districts within the tri-county area of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. 11. The state officer defendants deny the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 11 of plaintiffs' amended complaint. In answer to the second sentence of paragraph 11 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, the state officer defendants admit that all local school districts are subordinate governmental entities created and fashioned pursuant to the Michigan legislature's - 3- power to create and alter school district boundaries under Const 1963, art 8, § 2. In answer to the allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 11 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, the state officer defendants admit that local school districts, independent from other local governmental bodies, have varying discretionary powers over public education in effectuating the implementation of a state-wide system of free public elementary and secondary schools under Const 1963, art 8, § 2; the size of school districts does vary, plaintiffs are left to their proof as to whether school district boundaries are irregular since the state defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to what is meant by irregular boundaries, some school district boundaries are related to the boundaries of other governmental units, some school district boundaries are not related to the boundaries of other governmental units, and as to whether school district boundaries are often crossed by school children and personnel to further various school programs, the state officer defendants deny same. The fourth sentence of paragraph 11 of plaintiffs' amended complaint contains an inapplicable conclusion of law requiring no answer. In answer to the fifth sentence of paragraph 11 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, state officer defendants deny the same except that the state officer defendants admit that the State Board of Education performs ministerial functions in distributing state school aid to school districts pursuant to allocation formulas adopted by the legislature and the State Board of Education has the authority under Const 1963, art 8, § 3 to accredit, for its own purposes, Michigan school districts, a power which it has never exercised, and does have general supervision over public education within the scope of Const 1963, art 8, § 3, and the State Board of Education lacks any lawful authority over pupil assignment, either within school districts or among school districts. In answer to the - 4 - s sixth sentence of paragraph 11 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, the state officer defendants deny the existence of any unlawful segregation among and within Michigan school districts and reiterate that the State Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction lack authority over pupil assignment both within and among Michigan school districts. 12. In answet to the first sentence of paragraph 12 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, state officer defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and leave plaintiffs to their proof. In answer to the second sentence of paragraph 12 of plaintiffs' amemded complaint, state officer defendants deny the allegations contained therein. Further, the state officer defendants affirmatively assert that the allegations as to the "Detroit metropolitan area" and "housing opportunities" are irrelevant in a school desegregation case. 13. In answer to paragraph 13 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, state officer defendants deny the allegations contained therein and affirmatively assert that if there is any unlawful segregation of pupils within the School District of the City of Detroit, it may be remedied by a plan of desegregation limited to the School District of the City of Detroit in conformity with constitutional requirements. 14. The state officer defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of plaintiffs' amended complaint. 15. The state officer defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiffs' amended complaint. 16. The state officer defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of plaintiffs' amended complaint. - 5 - 17. In answer to paragraph 17 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, the state officer defendants admit that the Findings f of Fact in Support of Desegregation Area and Development of Plans issued by the District Court on June 14, 1972, paragraphs 1 to 91, are attached to plaintiffs' amended complaint as Exhibit B. No further answer is required since the purported additional allegations are contained in an exhibit to plaintiffs' amended complaint rather than in the amended complaint itself, and for the further reason that the Order entered upon such Findings has been vacated. If a further answer is required, the state officer defendants deny all findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1 to 91 that are adverse to the state officer defendants, the intervening and added school district defendants and the Detroit School District defendants herein. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. That plaintiffs' Amended Complaint to Conform to Evidence fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against any of the state officer defendants herein. 2. That plaintiffs' Amended Complaint to Conform to Evidence fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against any of the school district defendants herein. 3. That the imposition of any multi-district remedy herein requires the prior convening of a three-judge court, pursuant to USC § 2281 and § 2284, for the reason that any such coercive relief must necessarily involve enjoining the enforcement of statutes of state-wide application relating to the right of students to attend school within the school district of their residence, statutes relating to the discretionary authority of local school boards to assign pupils within their respective school districts, and statutes which provide that local boards of education need not accept nonresident students. - 6- 4. That the additional allegations to conform to the evidence, set forth in paragraphs 10 through 16 of plaintiffs' amended complaint, do not conform to the evidence and are not supported by the evidence heretofore introduced in this cause. And, further, such additional allegations raise issues beyond the scope of plaintiffs' original complaint that have not heretofore been tried by the express or implied consent of the parties herein. 5. That as to all the school district defendants, other than Detroit, the involvement of such school district defendants in any multi-district remedy is both contrary to law and in violation of fundamental concepts of due process involving prior notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard on all substantive issues relating to any claims for relief against such school district defendants. 6. State officer defendants herein affirmatively assert that they have committed no acts of de jure segregation, and further affirmatively assert that their conduct is in no way causally related to the racial distribution of pupils within and among all of the schools within the school district defendants herein, and that this Court lacks any lawful authority to decree a mult-district remedy in this cause. WHEREFORE, the state officer defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter its order dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint, as further amended by plaintiffs' memorandum of September 21, 1973, to all counsel of record, with prejudice. Dated: November 1, 1973 Respectfully submitted, FRANK J. KELLEY ^ttorney General Eugene Krasicky Assistant Attorney General / Gerald F. Young Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for State Officer Defendants 750 Law Building 525 West Ottawa Street Lansing, Michigan 48913 - 7-