Defendants Response in Opposition to Submission of Proposals

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

Plaintiffs, 
v.

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,

and
Defendants,

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

Defendants-Intervenors,
and

Civil Action 
No. 35257

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, 
LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

ana
De fendant-Intervenor,

ALLEN PARK, et

and

al,
Defendants-Intervenors,

KERRY GREEN, et al,

Defendants-Intervenors.
________  ______________/

STATE DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF 
________ PROPOSALS TO LEGISLATURE

Now come defendants, Governor, Attorney General, State Board 
of Education, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Treasurer of 
the State of Michigan, referred to herein collectively as the state 
defendants, by their attorneys, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of 
the State of Michigan, and Eugene Krasicky, Assistant Attorney General, 
and make their response in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to require 
submission of proposals to legislature, respectfully representing to 

this Honorable Court as follows:



1 , The state defendants respectfully request that this 

Court hold such motion in abeyance, as premature, pending final 
disposition of the petition for certiorari which the state defendants 
unequivocally intend to file with the United States Supreme Court 

seeking its review of the majority decision of the Sixth Circuit 

Court of Appeals rendered herein on June 12, 1973. Bradley v

Ml3.liken, ___ F2d  Nos. 72-1809 - 72-1814, June 12, 1973,

en banc, Slip Opinion, pp 1-81. The last day for filing said 

petition for certiorari is September IQ, 1973.

2» In the event this Court does not hold such motion in 

abeyance, as premature, the state defendants oppose the granting 
of plaintiffs' motion to require the state defendants to submit 
multi-district desegregation proposals to the Michigan legislature 

for the following reasons:
AT Such relief is beyond the scope of the relief 

authorized by the majority slip opinion of the 
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals herein, supra.

B. Such relief is without precedent.

C. Such relief constitutes an unwarranted intrusion 

of the federal judiciary into the internal 

workings of the executive and legislative branches 

of state government in contravention of sound 

principles of federalism.

D. Such relief would improperly require the state 
defendants to take public positions contrary to 
their adversary position in this litigation prior 
to a final judicial determination as to whether
a Multi-district remedy is constitutionally 

appropriate in this cause.



3. The foregoing reasons are reiterated and elaborated 

upon in the accompanying brief of the state defendants in opposition 
to plaintiffs' motion to require submission of proposals to 
legislature.

WHEREFORE, the state defendants respectfully request this 
Honorable Court to hold in abeyance, as premature, plaintiffs' 

motion to require submission of proposals to legislature or, 

alternatively, to deny such motion.

Respectfully submitted

FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General /

Gerald F. Young 
George L. McCargar 
Attorneys for State Defendants

Business Address:
720 Law Building
525 West Ottawa Street
Lansing, Michigan 48913

Dated: August 24, 1973

- 3 -