Motion for Leave to Proceed on the Original Papers and to Dispense Printed Appendix; Petition for Reconsideration

    M A R V I N  L.  R A T N E R  

R.  B .  S U G A R M O N ,  J R .  

L O U I S  R.  L U C A S  

I R V I N  M.  5 A L K Y  

W A L T E R  L .  B A I L E Y ,  J R .  

J A M E S  T .  A L L I S O N

M I C H A E L  B .  K A Y  

W I L L I A M  E .  C A L D W E L L  

C .  A N T H O N Y  J O H N S O N  

E L I J A H  N O E L ,  J R .

R A T N E R ,  S U G A R M O N  & L U C A S
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

S U I T E  5 2 S

C O M M E R C E  T I T L E  B U I L D I N G

MEMPHI S,  T E N N E S S E E  3QI  0 3  p h o n e  ( 9 0 i )  s s s - e e o i

August 22, 1973

Hon, Stephen J. Roth 
United States District Judge 
United States District Court 
600 Church Street 
Flint, Michigan 48502

Re: Bradley v. Milliken,
No. 35257

Dear Judge Roth:

Plaintiffs are advised by copy of a letter 
dated August 20, 1973, that the defendant, Attorney 
General, has transmitted to the legislature through its 
respective officers, a notice of the directions of the 
Sixth Circuit in this matter.

Plaintiffs wish to re-emphasize their pending 
motion which would require something more substantial 
from the State defendants by way of submission to the 
legislature to meet their respective constitutional obli­
gation as defined by this Court and as affirmed by the 
Court of Appeals.

The notice given may be sufficient for the 
defendant Kelly*s obligation, but it in no way meets the 
obligation of the State school authorities towards plain­
tiffs in this matter. Unless we are to proceed on an 
assumption or stipulation that the legislature of the 
State of Michigan is racially prejudiced and will once 
again seek to prevent plaintiffs from obtaining their 
constitutional rights, the admonitions of the Court of 
Appeals deserve more positive and serious consideration 
than is evident from a reading of the August 20, 1973 
letter of the defendant Attorney General.



F R A N K  J. KELLEY
A T T O R N E Y  G E N E R A L

LANSING 
4 8 9 1 3

August 20, 1973

Hon. James H. Brickley 
Lieutenant Governor and 
President of the Senate 
The Capitol 
Lansing, Michigan
Gentlemen:

At the request of Federal District Judge Stephen J. Roth, 
that the Michigan Legislature be advised of the decision of the 
United States Court of Appeals in Bradley, et al v Milliken, et al, 
and that its attention be directed to pages 68, 79 and 80 of the 
opinion, I enclose herewith a copy of such opinion.

I am forwarding this opinion and information to you because 
I am aware that presently the Michigan Legislature is adjourned to 
October 16, 1973, by Joint Resolution of the Legislature. I ask 
that you bring this matter to the attention of the members of the 
Senate and House at your earliest opportunity.

As you know, my office is preparing a petition for writ of 
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court requesting that it 
review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals in this 
case. It should be filed shortly. I am of the opinion that the 
decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is erroneous and 
will, in the end, not be upheld by the United States Supreme Court.

Hon. William A. Ryan, Speaker 
House of Representatives 
The Capitol 
Lansing, Michigan

Enc.
cc: Hon. Stephen J. Roth
cc: All counsel of record

Sincerely,

IK J/ KELLEY 
'Attorney Ge

1-L



Hon. Stephen Roth Page 2 - August 2 2, 1973

Therefore, we respectfully request that the 
Court enter an order substantially in accordance with 
the prayer in our motion.

LRL:rb
cc: All counsel of record



M A R V I N  L .  R A T N E R  

R .  B .  S U G A R M O N ,  J R .  

L O U I S  R.  L U C A S  

I R V I N  M.  S A L K Y  

W A L T E R  L.  B A I L E Y ,  J R .  

J A M E S  T .  A L L I S O N

M I C H A E L  B .  K A Y  

W I L L I A M  E .  C A L D W E L L  

C .  A N T H O N Y  J O H N S O N  

E L I J A H  N O E L ,  J R .

R A T N E R ,  S U G A R M O N  & L U C A S
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

S U I T E  5 2 5

C O M M E R C E  T I T L E  B U I L D I N G

M E M P H I S ,  T E N N E S S E E  3 S I 0 3 P H O N E  ( 9  01)  5 2 5 - 8 6 0 1

August 17, 1973

Norman J. Chachkin, Esq.
Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
Nathaniel Jones, Esq.
General Counsel, NAACP 
1790 Broadway
New York, New York 10019
J. Harold Flannery 
Center of Law & Education 
Larsen Hall 
14 Appian Way 
Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Re: Bradley v. Milliken

Gentlemen:
Enclosed, please find copies of plaintiffs 

Motion to Require Submission of Proposals to Legisla­
ture and Memorandum in support thereof and Motion to 
Join and Substitute Parties and Memorandum in Support 
thereof and dated August 3, 1973. 4

Very truly yours,

Louis R. Lucas

LRL:rb 
Enclosure



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

-  }

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )
)

Plaintiffs, )
)

vs. )
)

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, )
)

Defendants, )
)

and )
)

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, )
)

Defendants-Intervenors, )
)

and )
)

ALLEN PARK, et al., )
)

Defendants-Intervenors, )
)

and )
. , )KERRY GREEN, et al., )

)
Defendants-Intervenors, )

)
and )

)
WAYNE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE ' - )
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., )

)
Added Defendants. )

)

CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 35257

MOTION TO REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS TO LEGISLATURE

NOW COME plaintiffs, Ronald Bradley, et al. , 

and move this Honorable Court to require the State de­
fendants, the Governor, the Attorney General, the State 
Superintendent and the State Board of Education, to take 

all necessary steps to submit proposals to the legisla­

ture of the State of Michigan which would provide a com­

plete remedy for the unconstitutional segregation found 
by this Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Such proposals should include, but should not 
be limited to:

(a) The proposals previously submitted to 

the Court by the State Superintendent



of Education;

(b) Proposal limited to the compulsory ex­
change of pupils, faculty and resources 

by contract or otherwise for the purpose 

of desegregation;
(c) The reorganization, merger, and/or con­

solidation of school districts;

(d) Any other methods which would provide no 

less full-time two-way, pupil and facul­

ty desegregation;

(e) Provisions designed to prevent overt and 
covert evasion of a plan of desegregation 

and measures designed to effectuate and
f

maintain a stable system of desegregated 

schools.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court 
require the defendants to include in their recommendations 

to the legislature, time tables for the accomplishment of 
the proposed result consistent with federal constitutional 

requirements all in accordance with the opinion of the Sixth 

Circuit Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to require 

submission to it by the State defendants of a progress re­
port within thirty (30) days of the entry of the order 

and that the Court require the defendants to ask the legis­

lature for a definitive response within sixty (60) days of 

the order, or such other time as the Court may determine all 
in accord with the Sixth Circuit directive of "effectively 

and expeditiously."

PAUL R. DIMOND 
906 Rose Avenue
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104 WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS
J. HAROLD FLANNERY 525 Commerce Title Building
Center of Law & Education Memphis, Tennessee 38103
Larsen Hall
14 Appian Way NATHANIEL JONES
Cambridge, Mass. 02138 1790 Broadway

New York, New York 10019
JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

- 2 -