Letter from Krasicky to Hanssen RE: Defendants' Answer to Evidence Complaint with Certificate of Service

    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-