Justice Black Asked to Issue Injunction Against Mississippi Freedom Rider Prosecutions

    O F F I C E  O F  T H E  C L E R K

J A M E S  A. H I G G I N S  
C L E R K

U N IT E D  S T A T E S  C O U R T  O F  A P P E A L S
F O R  T H E  S IX T H  C I R C U I T  

C I N C I N N A T I .  O H I O  4 5 2 0 2

July 24, 1972

Mr. Louis R. Lucas
525 Commerce Title Building
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
Mr. Robert A. Derengoski 
Solicitor General of Michigan 
720 Law Building 
525 West Ottawa Street 
Lansing, Michigan 48913

Re: Case No. 72-8002
Ronald Bradley, et al. 
vs .William G. Milliken, et al.

Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of an order which was 

entered today in the above-styled case.
Very truly yours,
James A. Higgins, Clerk

Chief Deputy
Enclosure
cc: All counsel



# 72-8002

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,
Plaintiffs-Appellees 

v.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,

Defendants-App ellants
and

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

Defendant-Intervenor
and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,
Defendants-Intervenors

Before: PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, EDWARDS and PECK, Circuit Judges

By order of this Court entered July 20, 1972, the motion 
for leave to appeal was granted, the case was advanced on the docket 
and set for hearing on August 24, 1972, simultaneous briefs being due 
within 25 days of that order.

It is further ORDERED that all parties include in such 
briefs their response to the following questions:

1. Does Section 803 of the Education Amendments of 
1972, Pub. L. No. 92-318 apply to Metropolitan transportation orders 
which have been or may be entered by the District Court in this case?

2. If Section 803 does apply, is it constitutional?
3. What is the precise legal status under State law of 

local school districts and boards of education vis-a-vis the State 

of Michigan?

CIRCUIT

)
)
)
)
)
)) SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

F I L E D
J U L 2 4  1972 

JAMES A. HIGGINS, Clerk



# 72-8002 - 2 -

All parties may raise and brief such additional issues as may 

be appropriate.
It is further ORDERED that the Attorney General of the 

State of Michigan, representing the State defendants, include in 
the appendix to his brief copies of all current Acts of the legis­
lature of Michigan now in effect which appropriate funds for the 
Michigan Board of Education, any affected local school district or 
board of education, general educational purposes, or general emer­
gency purposes. Any other party may, by way of appendix to his 
reply brief, include copies of any such appropriation acts asserted 

to have been omitted by the Attorney General.

question of whether the expenditures required by the District Court 
to be made in this case at State expense are authorized by such

It is further ORDERED that all parties brief the

appropriation acts.
Entered by order of the Court.