Correspondence from Roumell to Judge Roth

    W A L L A C E  D. R I L E Y  

G E O R G E  T. R OUMELL ,  JR .  

D O R O T H Y  C OM S T OC K  R I L E Y  

J A N E  K E L L E R  S O U R I S  

L O U I S  D. B E E R  

K. P A U L  Z O S E L

R i l e y  a n d  R o u m e l l
A T T O R N E Y S  A N D  C O U N S E L O R S  AT LAW 

7 L »  F L O O R  F O R D  B U I L D I N G  

DETROIT ,  M IC H IG A N  4 8 2 2 6

March 1, 1972

T E L E P H O N E  

(313)  9 6 Z - B 2 6 5

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

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

At 5:08 p.m. on February 29, the Board of Education 
of the City of Detroit passed a resolution to the effect 
that it is the position of the Detroit Board that any remedy, 
to be legally sufficient, must be metropolitan in scope, if, 
in fact, plaintiffs are entitled to a remedy at all.

On the basis of this resolution, we may now affir­
matively state, as we stated tentatively in our letter of 
February 23, 1972, that it is our position that no plan 
limited to the present boundaries of the City of Detroit will 
provide a constitutionally sufficient remedy. The Detroit 
Board, of course, reserves for appeal the question of whether 
a remedy is required at all.

As we understood the Court, the purpose of holding 
a hearing on March 14 was to hear out the Detroit Board on 
the "city only" plans which the Detroit Board has submitted 
pursuant to the previous order of the Court. The Detroit 
Board no longer desires that opportunity.

We are in receipt of a letter from the Attorney 
General, signed by Mr. Krasicky, in which he suggests that 
plaintiffs must demonstrate "the constitutional defects, if 
any, of the intra-district plans now before the Court." We 
do not respond at this time to Mr. Krasicky's assertions as 
to the law or as to what plaintiffs must do in order to have 
metropolitan plans considered, primarily because the thrust 
of Mr. Krasicky*s argument is directed against plaintiffs. 
Nonetheless, we do not see how the hearing which the Court



Honorable Stephen J. Roth - 2 - March 1, 1972

outlined in the pre-trial conference of February 22, 1972, 
could provide what Mr. Krasicky alleges must be provided. 
Plaintiffs, by stating that a metropolitan plan is necessary, 
admit the insufficiency of their "city only" plan. The 
Detroit Board admits the insufficiency of its "city only" 
plans. Who, then, is there in the lawsuit to plead for the 
position that the "city only" plans are constitutionally 
sufficient? We would respectfully suggest to the Court, 
without venturing an opinion as to the correctness of Mr. 
Krasicky's assertion, that if he is correct as to what the 
Court must do, then some forum must be found in which to do 
what he asks other than a hearing on plans which the parties 
proposing them admit are insufficient.

We would further respectfully suggest to the Court 
that such a hearing is neither at the appropriate time nor 
the appropriate vehicle for consideration of interim remedies. 
Plaintiffs do not at this time allege a need for interim 
remedies, asserting that a principal plan may be implemented 
with sufficient speed, nor do we concede either a legal or 
practical necessity for an interim remedy. Neither plaintiffs 
nor the Detroit Board's plans were designed to be interim 
remedies, and obviously neither bears any necessary resemblance 
to whatever final plan the Court might adopt. We would respect­
fully suggest to the Court that if, and only if, the need for 
interim remedies should appear to the Court, then that would 
be the time to consider interim plans. If it becomes necessary, 
the Detroit Board would hope at that time to present an interim 
plan designed to complement the principal plan adopted by the 
Court. If plaintiffs should choose otherwise, their plan already 
submitted would be available to the Court.

In view of the position of plaintiffs, stated on 
February 22, 1972, and in view of the position of the Detroit , 
Board stated herein, we therefore submit that the hearing 
outlined by the Court at pre-trial and tentatively scheduled 
for March 14, 1972, can no longer serve the purpose envisioned. 
We, therefore, await the Court's pleasure as to how the case 
should proceed. We would respectfully suggest that perhaps 
a further conference of counsel would be appropriate at this 
time.

Very truly yours,

T
George T. Roumell, Jr.

GTR.-L



March 1, 1972

R i l e y  a n d  R o u m e l l

Honorable Stephen J. Roth -3-

cc: Mr. E. Winther McCroom
Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones 
Messrs. J. Harold Flannery 

Paul R. Dimond 
Robert Pressman 

Messrs. Jack Greenberg
Norman J. Chachkin 

Mr. Theodore Sachs 
Mr. Alexander B. Ritchie 
Hon. Frank J. Kelley

By: Mr. Eugene Krasicky