Motion for Permission to File in Excess

Public Court Documents
July 28, 1972

Cite this item
Motion for Permission to File in Excess preview

2 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Correspondence from Kelley to Judge Roth, 1972. 27b616bd-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/450788a2-22fc-4f99-8029-35dc989f4fbb/correspondence-from-kelley-to-judge-roth. Accessed April 05, 2025.

    Copied!

    L e o n  S. C o h a n  
Deputy 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

February 25, 1972

Honorable Stephen J. Roth 
United States District Court 
700 Church Street 
Flint, Michigan 48502

Re: Bradley v. Milliken - No. 35257
Dear Judge Roth:

Responding to Mr. Roumell’s letter of February 23,
1972 to this Court, dealing with the question of holding 
hearings on intra-district and metropolitan remedies, we must 
inform the Court that, in our view, the necessity of a metro­
politan remedy may not be established simply by agreement or
-T * -  A -r- - - “» r-, 4 - .! .y- , -  -  -r* 4 .  v ,  -> v * -f- 4  4- ?  • %,7r\ h? x Jt 4-  -T 4  -
U WJ*U '“'J- Viii- pcix 0-LO O • r Ui UiV-iA y i/»C U.O I I KS  O Xii UCilU L/ W JW-L.XXin any such stipulation. •

Rather, we think the Court must hold a hearing and make 
findings concerning the legal infirmities, if any, in the 
proposed intra-district remedies now before the Court. The 
plaintiffs have prepared and submitted to the Court a compre­
hensive plan for an intra-district remedy. We believe it is 
incumbent upon plaintiffs, if they desire a metropolitan remedy, 
to meet their burden of demonstrating to the Court the consti­
tutional defects, if any, in the proposed intra-district plans 
for desegregation now before the Court.

Finally, it is our view that in the absence of competent 
evidence and a finding by the Court that (1) the present school 
district boundary lines were established and maintained with 
the purpose and intent and have the effect of perpetuating 
racial segregation, and (2) the metropolitan districts practice 
segregation, this Court may not properly grant plaintiffs a 
metropolitan remedy. Bradley v School Board of City of Richmond,
___F Supp ___ (ED Va, Jan. 5, 1972), pp 57-59 and 67 of memorandum
opinion.

Very truly yours,
FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney ̂ General
Eugene Krasicky y

sistant Attorney General
A



Hon. Stephen J. Roth 
Page 2 - February 25, 1972

cc: Messrs. Louis R. Lucas
and William E. Caldwell 
Mr. E. Winther McCroom 
Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones 
Messrs. J. Harold Falannery,

Paul R. Dimond and Robert Pressman 
Messrs. Jack Greenberg and 

Norman J. Chachkin 
Mr. George T. Roumell3 Jr.
Mr. Theodore Sachs
Mr. Alexander B. Ritchie

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top