Response to Motion For Required Submission of Proposals to Legislature

    * -'-̂ g

i i fs| V'T’ tj* 1"\ C 'T ' a  fT'r.' Q  n T C rr ’ T” '" ’ r r  m i i  D T  u x i u i i j  J k J i i u o i .  O U u t l i

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICH 
SOUTHERN DIVISION

N

RONALD BRADLEY, ET AL,

Civil Ac 
No. 35257

Defendants,
and

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

Plaintiffs,
v ,

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, ET AL,

Defendant-Intervenor,
and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, ET AL,

Defendants-Intervenor,
and

ALLEN PARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL,

D efendants-Inter venor s ,
and

CROSSE POINT# PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant-Intervenor,
and

SOUTHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant-Intervenor,
and

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 
ROYAL OAK,

Defendant-Intervenor,
and

KERRY GREEN, ET AL,
Defendant-Intervenor,

and

PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL OF VAN DYKE,

/
Defendant-Intervenor.

V



•  •

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REQUIRE 
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS TO LEG ISLAT URE

NOW COME Allen Park  Public  Schools ,  et al, C ro s s e  Poirite Public
\ *

Schools ,  Southfield Public Schools and School D is tr ic t  of the City of Royal 

Oak, Defendants - Intervenors , by their respect ive  attorneys, and in respon se  

to Plaintiffs '  Motion to Require Submission of P roposa ls  to the Michigan 

Legis lature  say:

In its opinion rendered  June 12, 1973, the United States Court of 

Appeals  fo r  the Sixth Circuit (hereinafter called ’ ’Sixth Circuit'*) stated as 

fo l low s ;

"W hile  agreeing  with the D istr ic t  Court in its co n ­
c lus ion  that it can con s ider  a m etropolitan rem edy, we 
exp ress  no views as to the desegregation  area set forth in 
the orders  of the D is tr ic t  Court.

"W e vacate the order  of M arch  28, 1972, entitled 
'Ruling on P rop r ie ty  of a M.etropolitan Rem edy to A cc o m p l is h  
D esegregat ion  of the Public  Schools of D etro it ' .

"T h is  Court recogn izes  that, as set forth  above, the 
leg is lature  of the State of Michigan has power to provide a 
com plete  rem edy  fo r  the unconstitutional segregation  d i s ­
c lo se d  in this re co rd .  It, too, has responsib il ity  for  following 
the great mandates of the United States Constitution.

"If,  how ever,  the leg is lature  fails to act, or if it acts 
in a manner inconsistent with the expeditious and effic ient 
elimination of the unconstitutional p ract ices  and conditions 
d e scr ib e d  in this opinion, the D is tr ic t  Court shall p ro ce e d  to 
fashion such a rem edy, including an interim rem edy  if found 
to be n ecessa ry ,  as it shall determ ine to be appropriate within 
the guidelines of this op in ion ."  Bradley et a.l v Milliken et a l , 
Slip Opinion, page 68.

The intendment of the aforem entioned statement relative to legislative  action 

is c lea r ly  exp ressed  at pages 79-80 of the Slip Opinion. The Sixth Cii cuit

- 2  -



thus em phasizes  that the leg is la ture  be afforded an opportunity to act and 

failing to so  do, the D is tr ic t  Court should proceed  to fashion a rem ed y  

in a c c o r d  with the Court ’ s opinion.

There is no language in the Sixth C ircu it 's  opinion which can reasonab ly  

be construed as authorization for  an order by this Court commanding the 

State Defendants to submit proposa ls  to the Michigan Legis lature .  The Sixth 

C ircu it  opinion c le a r ly  recogn izes  the independence of the executive , jud ic ia l  

and leg islative  branches o f  government under the separation of powers 

doctr ine  in stating that the Legis lature s im ply  be given "an opportunity" to 

act  within its sphere of authority.

M o re o v e r ,  there is no need fo r  this Court to d ire c t  the State Defendants 

to submit proposa ls  to the Legislature in order  fo r  it to have "an  opportunity" 

to act  or to secu re  prop osa ls  for  legislative consideration.

A nu o f  Hip . -on r M o .q  fn  Hvi<? r a s p ,  inr'iucijncr fhp P la in t iffs , m av Bfttition  

the Legis lature  to act  and m ay  submit proposa ls  to the Legis lature  fo r  its 

consideration . At the time of hearing be fo re  the Sixth C ircu it ,  Judge

C e leb rezze  sp e c i f ica l ly  asked counsel for  the Plaintiffs and the D etro it  Board
* t*

of Eduction why they had not prev iously  sought re l ie f  f r o m  the Legis lature  

p r ior  to seeking jud ic ia l  re lie f .

Notice to the Legis lature of the Sixth C ircu it ’ s opinion, together 

with copies  of the opinions and orders  of this Court and the subm iss ion  of



such proposa ls  as any party to these proceedings m ay wish to make to the 

Legis lature  w il l  certain  a fford  the Legislature "an opportunity" to act  as 

contemplated by the Court of Appeals '  opinion. Had the Court o f  Appeals  

intended to requ ire  the State Defendants to make legislative  p rop osa ls ,  it 

could have and undoubtedly would have done so.

P la intif fs '  Motion to Require Submission of P rop osa ls  to Legis la ture  

by the State Defendants is not required  by or n e ce s s a ry  to com p ly  with the 

opinion and ord ers  of the Sixth Circuit  and should be denied.

Respectfu lly  submitted,

Detroit,  Michigan 48226 
Telephone: (313) 963-8142 
Attorneys fo r  Defendants-Intevenors,
A llen  Park  Public Schools ,  efc al

HILL, LEWIS, ADAMS, GOODRICH & TAIT

By_______ _____ ________________________ _
Douglas H. W est 

3700 P enobscot  Building 
Detroit ,  Michigan 48226 
Telephone: (313) 962-6485 
Attorneys fo r  Defendant-Intervenor, 
G ro sse  Pointe Public Schools

- 4 -



C O N D IT A N D  M C  G A R R Y ,  P .  C.

By.
Richard P. Ccndit 

860 West Long Lake Road 
Bloomfield . Hills ,  Michigan 48013 
Telephone: (313) 645-5205 
Attorneys fo r  Defendant-Intervenor,
Southfield Public  Schools

HARTMAN, BEIER, HOW LETT, MC CONNELL 
& GOOGASIAN

................f/;ec
Kenneth B

yxy^LcJ lBy___
M cC on n ell

74 West: Long Lake Road 
B loom fie ld  Hills ,  Michigan 48013 
Telephone: (313) 645-9400 
Attorneys fo r  Defendant-Inter venor, 
School D is tr ic t  of the City of R oya l  Oak