Emergency Motion for Order Enforcing Stay Order
Public Court Documents
August 2, 1972

5 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Emergency Motion for Order Enforcing Stay Order, 1972. b9744b75-53e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/b6158ee0-8b2e-4234-b4a6-59c4e6620a4e/emergency-motion-for-order-enforcing-stay-order. Accessed May 20, 2025.
Copied!
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