Ruling on Propriety of Considering a Metropolitan Remedy to Accomplish Desegregation of Detroit Public Schools

    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, • )

Defendant- )
Intervenor )

and . )
, - ) 

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al., )
Defendants- )
Intervenor )

et al. . )
....  )
_______________ _____ _ ______ _______  )

' -

CIVIL ACTION NO: 
35257

v RULING ON PROPRIETY OF CONSIDERING A METROPOLITAN REMEDY 
TO ACCOMPLISH DESEGREGATION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

. OF THE CITY OF DETROIT

In its prior ruling, "Ruling on Issue of Segregation'1
(September 27, 1971), the court has. found that segregation
exists in the public schools of the City of Detroit because
of, among other causes, the acts of the State of Michigan
and the Detroit Board of Education. In the language of

1 2Swann, "a right and a violation have been shown." Given
the constitutional violation, judicial authority, when
properly invoked, must be exercised to right the wrong. In
addressing itself to this task the Supreme Court has said
that the "scope of a district court's equitable powers to
remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are 
. 3inherent in equitable remedies." And, it pointed out,

A TRUE COPY
FREDERICK W. JOHNSON, CLERK



"a school desegregation case does not differ fundamentally

from other cases involving the framing of equitable remedies to
• , . 4repair the denial of a constitutional right." The task

is to correct the condition which offends the Constitution.
Illustrative of what was meant by the Supreme Court, see
the legislative and congressional reapportionment cases.5

Under the circumstances of this case, the question
presented is whether the court may consider relief in the
form of a metropolitan plan, encompassing not only the city
of Detroit, but the larger Detroit metropolitan area which,
for the present purposes,- we may define as comprising the
three counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. It should be
noted that the court has just concluded its hearing on plans
^submitted by the plaintiffs and the -Detroit Board of Education
for the intra-city desegregation of the Detroit public schools.
A ruling has not yet been made on these plans, but in■ s ■ , ,
accordance with the mandate of the Court of Appeals that a 
hearing on the merits be concluded at the earliest possible 
time, we consider it necessary to proceed apace with a 
resolution of the issue before us, i_.js., the propriety of 
weighing the legal availability of a metropolitan remedy for 
segregation. . . '

The State defendants in this case take the position,
as we understand it, that no "state action" has had a part
in the segregation found to exist. This assertion disregards
the findings already made by this court, and the decision of

7the Court of Appeals as well. Additionally, they appear to 
view the delegation of the State's powers and duties with 
respect to education to local governmental bodies as vesting
the latter with sovereign powers which may not be disturbed



by either the State or the court. This we cannot accept. ... 
Political subdivisions of the states have never been 
considered sovereign entities, rather "they have been 
traditionally regarded as subordinate governmental instru­
mentalities created by the state to assist it in carrying 
out of state governmental functions." Reynolds v. Sims, •
377 U.S. 533, 575. perhaps the clearest refutation of the 
State's asserted lack of power to act in the field of education 
is Act 48 of 1970. The State cannot evade its constitutional . 
responsibility by a delegation of powers to local units of 
government. The State defendants' position is in error in two 
other respects: 1. The local school districts are not
fully autonomous bodies, for to the extent it has seen fit the 
State retains control and supervision; and 2. It assumes that 
any metropolitan plan, if one is adopted, would, of necessity, 
require the dismantling of school districts included in the 
plan. . . •

The main thrust of the objections to the consideration 
of a metropolitan remedy advanced by intervening school 
districts is that, absent a finding of acts of segregation on 
their part, individually, they may not be considered in 
fashioning a remedy for relief of the plaintiffs. It must 
be conceded that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled directly 
on this issue? accordingly, we can only proceed by feeling 
our way through its past decisions with respect to the goal 
to be achieved in school desegregation cases. Green v . County
School Board, 391 U.S. 430, teaches us that it is our 
obligation to assess the effectiveness of proposed plans of 
desegregation in the light of circumstances present and the
available alternatives; and to choose the alternative or



alternatives which promise realistically to work now and
hereafter to produce the maximum actual desegregation. As
Chief Justice Burger said in Swann, "in seeking to define
,the scope of remedial power of courts in an area as
sensitive as we deal with here, words are poor instruments
to convey the sense of basic fairness inherent in equity."
Substance, not semantics, must govern. *

• 8It seems to us that Brown xs dispositive of .the
issue:

"In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the 
courts will be guided by equitable principles. 
Traditionally, equity has been characterized by a 
practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by 
a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and 

- private needs. These cases call for the exercise of 
these traditional attributes of equity power. At 
stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in 
admission to public schools as soon as practicable on 
a nondiscriminatory basis. To effectuate this interest 
may call for.elimination of a variety of obstacles in 
making the transition to school systems operated in 
accordance with the constitutional principles set forth 
in our May 17, 1954, decision. Courts of equity may 
properly take into account the public interest in the 
elimination of such obstacles in a systematic and 
effective manner. But it should go without saying that 
the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot 
be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with 
them." •

*  *  *  •

" * * * the courts may consider problems related to 
administration, arising from the physical condition of 
the school plant, the school transportation systems,

* personnel, revision of school districts and attendance 
areas into compact units to achieve a system of 
determining admission to the public schools on a 
nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and 
regulations which may be necessary in solving the 
foregoing problems."

We conclude that it is proper for the court to
consider metropolitan plans directed toward the desegregation 
of the Detroit public schools as an alternative to the 
present intra-city desegregation plans before it and, in the 
event that the court finds such intra-city plans inadequate

- 4 ™

i



to desegregate such schools, the court is of the opinion that 
it is required to consider a metropolitan remedy for 
desegregation.

The schedule previously established for the hearing 
on metropolitan plans will go forward as noticed, beginning 
March 28, 1972.

1Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1.
2Ibid., p. 15. 
3Ibid., p. 15.
4Ibid., pp. 15, 16. .
5 *
Reynolds v. Sims, 377'U.S. 533.
6 ‘See' "Ruling on Issue of Segregation," supra, indicating a 
black student projection for the school year 1980-81 of 80.7%.

7
See "Ruling on Issue of Segregation," supra; Bradley v. 

Milliken, 433 F.2d 897.

8
Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, 34 9 U.S. 2?4, at 300 and 301.

5-

I