Response to Plaintiffs to Motion to Intervene

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )
Plaintiffs, )

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., )
Defendants, )

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,) 
LOCAL NO. 231, AMERICAN FED­
ERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, )

Defendant-Intervenor )
and )
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al. )

Defendants-Intervenors, )
and )
JEFERSON-CHALMERS CITIZENS' )
DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC.,

)
Applicants for 
Intervention. ' )

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 35257

RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFFS 
TO MOTION TO INTERVENE

Upon consideration of the motion to intervene and 
supporting papers filed by the Jefferson-Chalmers Citizens' 
District Council, Inc., plaintiffs, by undersigned counsel, 
respond as follows:

1. This Court's construction injunction of June 9, 
1971, is directed to the Detroit Board of Education defendants.

2. The Detroit Board of Education defendants have 
initial and primary responsibility and authority with regard 
to school construction matters, subject only, insofar as this 
litigation is concerned, to constitutional restraints.



3. The Detroit Board of Education defendants have 
not sought plaintiffs' approval for a modification of the con­
struction injunction with regard to the Robinson Middle School 
(the school which is the subject of the motion to intervene), 
nor has the Detroit Board sought this Court's approval of such 
a modification.

4. Applicants for intervention have made no showing 
of inadequate representation by Detroit Board of Education 
defendants with regard to the proposed construction of Robinson 
Middle School. Applicants do not claim that they have responsi­
bility and authority to construct the Robinson Middle School; 
and they do not seek, in their moving papers,to have the Court 
order the Board to construct the school in question. Thus, 
even if,the injunction were modified in accordance with the 
desires of proposed intervenors, the decision to build or not
to build the Robinson Middle School would still be that of the 
Detroit Board of Education defendants.

5. The party against whom an injunction runs is the 
party that should seek modification thereof; and where, as here, 
that party is the only person or agency with the authority to
do the act enjoined, that party is the only one that may seek 
modification of the injunction.

6. Should the Detroit Board of Education defendants
desire to begin construction of the proposed Robinson Middle 
School, the appropriate procedure (as established in other 
recent construction matters) is: (a) seek agreement of
plaintiffs as to the proposed project; (b) if plaintiffs agree, 
submit the agreement for Court approval; (c) if plaintiffs do 
not agree, apply to the Court for modification of the injunction. 
No such procedure has even been attempted here. If applicants 
for intervention are unable to get the Detroit Board defendants 
to press for the Robinson Middle School (but there is nothing
in the moving papers to indicate that this is the case) , that is 
a matter solely between applicants and defendants at this point.

2



Applicants have not raised a single issue which rises to 
constitutional proportions; until they do, intervention by 
this Court is not authorized.

Nothing herein should be construed as expressing 
any view by plaintiffs regarding the merits of the proposed 
Robinson Middle School. Upon request by the proper agency, 
plaintiffs will seriously and carefully evaluate this proposal.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs 
respectfully pray that the motion of the Jefferson-Chalmers 
Citizens' District Council, Inc., to intervene in this cause 
be denied.

OF COUNSEL:
J. HAROLD FLANNERY 
PAUL R. DIMOND 
ROBERT PRESSMAN

Center for Law & Education 
Harvard University 
Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Respectfully submitted,
RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS

By: (Jc(A****
LOUIS R. LUCAS
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

NATHANIEL R. JONES
General Counsel, N.A.A.C.P.
1790 Broadway
New York, New York 10019

E. WINTHER McCroom 
3245 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45207

JACK GREENBERG
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing response 
has been served upon counsel of record by United States mail, 
postage pre-paid, addressed as follows:

George T. Roumell, Jr., Esq. 
Riley and Roumell 
7th Floor, Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Eugene Krasicky, Esq. 
Assistant Attorney General 
Seven Story Office Building 
525 West Ottawa Street 
Lansing, Michigan 48913

Dated: January 31,- 1972

Theodore Sachs, Esq. 
1000 Farmer
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Alexander B. Ritchie 
2555 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
David Hood, Esq.
Wayne State University
468 W. Ferry
Detroit, Michigan 48202