Emergency Motion for Order Enforcing Stay Order

    I

No. 72-8002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

V.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,

and
Defendants-Appellants,

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

Defendant-Intervenor,
and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

et al.
Defendants-Intervenors,

/

On Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

PKTT? D C P T J r*V  M rVnTfYNJ o m 'T?V> C.rn
Z.JA. XX-. x  v C i j  fc »  i .  V i V  X V  X J l l  x  - L t%  V J  U i n a

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

FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General
Robert A. Derengoski 
Solicitor General
Eugene Krasicky ’
Gerald F. Young 
Patrick Kowaleski 
Assistant Attorneys General 
Attorneys for Defendants Governor, 
Attorney General, State Board of 
Education & Supt. of Public Instructio'



No. 72-8002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

V.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,

and
Defendants-Appellants,

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

and
Defendant-Intervenor,

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

. Defendants-Intervenors,
et al.

/

On Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER ENFORCING STAY ORDER

Now come defendants Milliken, Kelley, State Board of 
Education, Porter and Green, by their attorneys, Frank J. 
Kelley, Attorney General for the State of Michigan, et al, 
and move this court or a judge thereof for immediate con­
sideration of this Emergency Motion and for an order enforcing



its stay order of July 20, 1972, in the respects set forth 
below:

1. On July 20, 1972 this Court entered its order 
staying all proceedings in the District Court in this case 
other than planning proceedings pending the hearing and 
disposition of this appeal on the merits. In the same order 
this Court advanced this appeal on the docket and directed 
the parties to file simultaneous briefs and appendix by 
August 14, 1972 with reply briefs to be filed no later than 
August 21, 1972.

2. On July 31, 1972 both the desegregation panel and 
the Superintendent of Public Instruction filed their respective 
desegregation plans and recommendations with the District Court

3. On August 1, 1972, counsel for plaintiffs, at the 
request of the District Court's law clerk, informed counsel for 
these defendants that the District Court expects the parties to 
file their objections to such desegregation plans and recom­
mendations by August 15, 1972, although counsel for these 
defendants is informed and believes that no hearings will be 
held on such objections pending appeal.

4. These defendants submit that such filing of 
objections to the desegregation plans and recommendations is



i

not within the scope of the planning proceedings that were 
permitted to go forward under this Court's order of July 20, 
1972 and respectfully requests this Court to issue an order 
enforcing its order of July 20, 1972 in this respect.

5. The desegregation plans and recommendations filed
by the desegregation panel and Superintendent of Public
Instruction consist of 3 documents totaling some 150 pages of
material. These defendants would stress, in support of their 

motion
ernergency_/that it is manifestly unfair, if not impossible, to 
be required to both prepare a brief in this Court under the 
accelerated briefing schedule established by this Court and 
to review the desegregation plans and recommendations and 
prepare objections to same. ---

6. This Court has expressed its awareness of the many
and complex issues in this cause by informing the parties that 
the page limitations on briefs in FR App P need not be followed 
in this appeal. These defendants would stress that the time of 
counsel is far better employed in briefing the major consti­
tutional law questions before this Court than in reviewing 
these desegregation plans and recommendations and preparing 
their objections thereto in light of the fact that the lower 
court does not contemplate hearings on such objections until 
after the disposition of this appeal. .

3
\



ft

7. Further, in the event the lower court is 
reversed on appeal, there will be no need for counsel to 
review these voluminous documents and prepare such objections.

WHEREFORE, these defendants respectfully request 
this Court to enter an order enforcing its July 20, 1972 
stay order by directing that the parties hereto need not 
file their objections to the desegregation plans and 
recommendations of the desegregation panel and the Super­
intendent of Public Instruction pending the disposition 
of this appeal on the merits by this Court.

Respectfully submitted,
FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

Robert A. Decrerigoskif 
Solicitor General
Eugene Krasicky 
Gerald F. Young 
Patrick Kowaleski

Assistant Attorneys General 
Attorneys for Defendants Governor, 
Attorney General, State Board of 
Education and Superintendent of 
Public Instruction

Dated: August 2, 1972

- 4 -

V