Motion for Clarifications and/or Modification of Stay Order

    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 
NO. 72-8002

RONALD BRADLEY, et al. ,
Plaintiffs-Appellee 

v s . ^

WILLIAM J. MILLIKEN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants

On Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Michigan,

Southern Division

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR MODIFICATION OF STAY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellees in the above-styled cause respectfully 
move the court for an order clarifying and/or modifying the 
stay order heretofore entered on July 20, 1972 to the end that 
the district court will be permitted to conduct all proceedings 
and hearings necessary to the formulation of a final order in 
this case.

As grounds for this motion, plaintiffs-appellees respect­
fully show the Court:

1. As evidenced by the motions of some of the appellants 
(previously denied by this Court on August 7, 1972) there is



some confusion as to that portion of this Court's July 20 Order 
which directs that

all other proceedings in the District 
Court other than planning proceedings, 
be stayed pending the hearing of this 
appeal on its merits and the disposition 
of the appeal by this Court, or until 
further order of this court. This stay •
order does not apply to the studies and 
planning of the panel which,has been 
appointed by the District Court in its 
order of June 14, 1972, which panel 
was charged with the duty of desegrega­
tion. Said panel is authorized to pro­
ceed with its studies and planning during 

. the disposition of this appeal, to the 
end that there will be no unnecessary 
delay in the implementation of the ultimate 
steps contemplated in the orders of the 
District Court in event the decision of the 
District Court is affirmed on appeal.

2. On July 31, 1972, the panel appointed by the district
court filed its proposed desegregation plan consisting of a
53-page narrative description and several hundred pages of 
detail reflecting actual pupil assignments under the plan. On 
August 31, 1972, two members of the 11-member panel filed a
minority report dissenting in part from some of the faculty dese­
gregation proposals of the panel majority's report of July 31, 
1972.

3. Also on July 31, 1972, the State Superintendent of
Public Instruction filed his recommendations regarding the 
interim (27 pages plus appendices) and final (54 pages) financial 
administrative and governance arrangements for the metropolitan 
desegregation plan.



4. Other than the legal objections to metropolitan 
desegregation which are presently awaiting resolution by this 
Court, it is expected that all parties will have some practical/ 
educational objections and modifications to the reports and 
proposals described in paragraphs 2 and 3 above.

5. Although it is not clear to us whether or not this 
Court's July 20 order allows the district court to conduct 
hearings to resolve the practical/educational objections which 
will be presented to it, it is respectfully submitted that such 
hearings should be allowed so that all steps precedent to a 
final order in the district court may be taken "to the end that 
there will be no unnecessary delay in the implementation of the 
ultimate steps contemplated in the orders of the District Court 
in event the decision of the District Court is affirmed on appeal 
(July 20 Order at 3). Under any other construction of the stay 
order,

it should be noted that what has actually 
been suspended... is not a broad federal 
court order for desegregation... — in

.. ... practical effect it is all proceedings and
hearings concerning the formulation of such 
an order.

Kelley v. Metropolitan County Bd. of Bduc., 436 F2d 856, 858 
(6th Cir. 1970).

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs-appellees 
respectfully pray the Court for an order clarifying and/or

- 3 -



modifying the July 20 stay order so that, should the district 
court be affirmed, all steps precedent to a final order in the 
district court will have been taken.

Respectfully submitted,

LOUIS R. LUCASJ. HAROLD FLANNERY
PAUL R. DIMOND
ROBERT PRESSMAN
Center for Law & Education
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
E. WINTHER McCROOM 
3245 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati, Ohio 
Attorney for Plaintiffs

WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 
Ratner, Bugarmon & Lucas 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee

NATHANIEL JONES 
General Counsel 
N.A.A.C.P.
1790 Broadway 
New York, New York

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing Motion 

have been served upon all counsel of record, either by hand 
delivery or U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 6th day of September
1972.