Defendants-Intervenors Emergency Motion with Cover Letter

    T H O M A S  G.  L O N G  
R O C K W E L L  T.  G U S T  
A.  H I L L I A R D  W I L L I A M S  
V I C T O R  W.  K L E I N  
T. G O R D O N  S C U P H O L M  
A L F R E O  W.  M A S S N I C K  
M A R T I N  L.  B U T Z E L  
P H I L I P  T. V A N  Z I L E .  II 
A D D I S O N  O.  C O N N O R  
G E O R G E  E.  B R A N D ,  J R .  
E L E A N O R  S.  P A Y N E  
J A M  E S  D.  R I T C H I E  
R U T H  H.  K O H L E R  
J O H N  J .  K U H N  
W I L L I A M  M.  S A X T O N  
H A R O L D  A .  R U E M E N A P P  
L E S L I E  W.  F L E M I N G  
W I L L I A M  L.  P O W E R S  
R O B E R T  J .  B A T T I S T A  
J O H N  P, W I L L I A M S  
R O B E R T  M. K L E I N  
X H A F E R  O R H A N  
L A W R E N C E  R.  V A N  T I L  
J O H  N B.  W E A V E  R 
G E O R G E  E . W A R D  
G E O R G E  H.  Z I N N .  J R .
J O H N  H.  D U D L E Y ,  J R .  
R O B E R T  M . V E R C R U Y S S E  
R I C H A R D  E.  R A S S E L  
R E U B E N  M. W A T E R M A N ,  J R .  
J O N  H.  W.  C L A R K

B U T i T L ,  L O N G ,  G U S T ,  K L E I N  & V A N

10 81 F I R S T  N A T I O N A L  S O l L D I N G

D E T R O I T .  M I C H I G A N  4 8 2 2 6

( 313 )  9 6 3 - 8 1 4 2

L E

August 2, 1972

L E O  M.  B U T Z E L  
1 8 7 4 - 1 9 6 1

F R A N K  D.  E A M A N  
1877 -  1 9 6  2

F R E D  J .  K E N N E D Y  

t B 9 1 - 1 9 6 ©

D A V I D  W.  K E N D A L L  
O F  C O U N S E L

TO: A L L  COUNSEL OF RECORD

RE: Bradley et al v M illiken et al,
U. S. Court of Appeals No. 72-8002

Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the "Em ergency Motion" 
of Defendants-Intervenors A llen  Park Public Schools, et al, Grosse 
Pointe Public Schools, Southfield Public Schools and School D istrict of the 
City of Royal Oak which was filed this date with the United States Court 
of Appeals fo r  the Sixth Circuit. 4

Sincerely yours,

John B. Weaver

J

62/ljd
en d



B
U

T
Z

E
L

. 
L

O
N

G
, 

O
U

S
T

, 
K

L
E

I
N

 
&

 
V

A
N

Z
I

L
E

 
• 

F
I

R
S

T
 

N
A

T
I

O
N

A
L

 
B

U
I

L
D

I
N

G
 

• 
D

E
T

R
O

I
T

 
4

S
2

2
B

J

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RONALD  BRAD LEY, et al,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

Vi United States
Court of Appeals

W IL L IA M  G. M ILL IK E N , et al, No. 72-8002

Defendants -Appellants,

and

D ETR O IT  FED ERATIO N  OF TEACHERS,
L O C A L  #231, AM E R ICAN  FE D ERATIO N  OF 
TEACHERS, A F L -C IO ,

Defendant-Intervenor,

and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

Defendants - Inte rvenor s ,

E T  A L .

EM ERG ENCY MOTION

NOW COME the A llen  Park  Public Schools, et al, the Grosse Pointe Public 

Schools, the Southfield Public Schools and the School D istrict of the City of Royal 

Oak and move this Honorable Court to d irect the Honorable Judge Stephen J. Roth, 

D istrict Judge for the United States D istrict Court, Eastern D istrict of Michigan, 

Southern Division, in conformance with the Order of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered on July 20, 1972, to take no further p ro ­

ceedings in the above captioned matter which involve the utilization of the time 

and efforts of counsel until further order of this Court.



In support of said Motion, movants say as follows:

1. By Order dated July 20, 1972, this Honorable Court directed that

counsel f i le  an appendix and briefs within twenty-five (25) days thereof, said date 

being August 14, 1972, and further stayed all proceedings in the D istrict Court, 

as follows:

. . a ll orders of the D istrict Court concerned with 
pupil and faculty reassignment within the Metropolitan A rea  
beyond the geographical jurisdiction of the Detroit Board of Edu­
cation, and a ll other proceedings in the D istrict Court other than 
planning proceedings, be stayed pending the hearing of this appeal 
on its m erits and the disposition of the appeal by this court, or 
until further order of this court. This stay order does not apply 
to the studies and planning of the panel which has been appointed 
by the D istrict Court in its order of June 14, 1972, which panel 
is charged with the duty of preparing interim  and final plans of 
desegregation. " [Emphasis added.]

2. On August 1, 1972, the recommendations of the Panel appointed

by the D istrict Court and the recommendations of the State Superintendent of 

Public Instruction, both called fo r  by the D istrict Court's Order of June 14, 1972, 

w ere  rece ived  by Counsel and, to the best of Counsels' knowledge and information, 

by the D istr ict Court. Said recommendations aggregate approximately 170 pages 

and deal with the reassignment of students and faculty, school finance and g o ve r ­

nance, as w e ll as in -serv ice  training fo r  faculty and staff, codes of student 

conduct, curriculum and textbooks.

3. On August 1, 1972, counsel were advised by Judge Roth's c lerk

that written objections to the recommendations submitted to the D is tr ic t  Court 

by the desegregation Panel and by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 

and modifications and alternatives thereto, shall be submitted to the D istrict 

Court on or before August 15, 1972.

-2-



B
U

T
Z

E
L

, 
L

O
N

G
. 

O
U

S
T

. 
K

L
E

IN
 

&
 

V
A

N
Z

I
L

E
 

• 
F

IR
S

T
 

N
A

T
IO

N
A

L
 

B
U

IL
D

IN
G

 
• 

D
E

T
R

O
IT

 
4

8
2

2
6

•  •

4. Counsel, in compliance with the Order of this Court issued on 

July 20, 1972, are devoting a ll of their efforts and time in connection with this 

proceeding to the preparation and printing of a joint appendix and the preparation 

of briefs. The time requirements imposed upon counsel with regard  to the p re ­

paration and presentation of the appeal to this Court do not perm it counsel ade­

quate time to rev iew  the recommendations of the desegregation Panel and the 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction, to counsel with their clients with 

respect to the same, and to prepare written objections, modifications and 

alternatives thereto by August 15, 1972.

5. The recommendations of the desegregation Panel do not contem­

plate the forced  reassignment of students and faculty p r io r  to the second semester:

of the 1972-1973 school year and there is no demonstrable need to impose upon
' • ! - 

counsel the unreasonable burden of preparing written objections, modifications

' |
and alternatives to the recommendations of the desegregation Panel and the State

I. i
Superintendent of Public Instruction pribr to the time the appeals in this case are 

heard by this Court.

6. The plan of desegregation embraced by the Order of the D istrict 

Court issued on June 14, 1972, and the recommendations of the desegregation 

Panel includes fifty-two (52) school d istricts, including some eighteen (18) school 

d istricts who have never been before the D istr ict Court and who are unrepresented 

by any counsel in this proceeding. None of the school districts involved w ere  

served  d irectly  with a copy of the recommendations of the desegregation Panel 

and the Superintendent of Public Instruction and copies thereof must be made and 

transmitted to them. It is submitted that elemental fa irness and due process of 

law require that each of the affected school d istricts be given reasonable oppor­

tunity to rev iew  and comment upon said recommendations and to communicate

-3-



B
U

T
Z

E
L

. 
L

O
N

O
. 

O
U

S
T

, 
K

L
E

IN
 

ft
 

V
A

N
Z

I
L

E
 

‘
F

I
R

S
T

 
N

A
T

IO
N

A
L

 
B

U
IL

D
IN

G
 

• 
D

E
T

R
O

IT
 

4
S

2
2

S

•  •  • •

with counsel with respect thereto, and that tie fifteen (15) day period allowed by 

the D istrict Court for filing objections, modifications and alternatives to said 

recommendations does not afford such opportunity. •

5. Inasmuch as counsel are devoting every  possible moment of their

time to comply with the schedule decreed by this Court in connection with the 

appeals from  the Orders of the D istrict Court, and, inasmuch as the d irective of 

the D istrict Court to prepare and f i le  written objections, modifications and a lte r ­

natives to the aforementioned recommendations is contrary to the letter and 

sp ir it  of the prior Order of this Court staying a ll proceedings in the D istrict j
Court except the studies and planning of the desegregation Panel, Counsel move

. i !
that this Court d irect the D istrict Court to rescind its mandate of August 1, 1972, ,

that counsel f i le  written objections, modifications and alternatives to the re com ­

mendations of the desegregation Panel and the State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction by August 15, 1972, until the,further Order of this Court.

Respectfully submitted, •

B U T Z E L , LONG, GUST, K LE IN  k  V AN  Z ILE

John B. W eaver 
Robert M. Vercruysse 

IBS'! F ir s t  National Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: (313) 963-8142
Attorneys for  A llen  Park  Public Schools, et al 

H IL L , LEWIS, ADAMS, GOODRICH 8t T A IT

By_ 'k '-M .  t  I !  W e U  f c , -
Robert B. Webster 
Douglas H. West 

3700 Penobscot Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: (313) 962-6485
Attorneys for The Grosse Pointe Public Schools

-4-



B
U

T
Z

E
L

. 
L

O
N

G
, 

O
U

S
T

. 
K

L
E

IN
 

&
 

V
A

N
Z

I
L

E
 

• 
IR

 S
 T

 
N

A
T

IO
N

A
L

 
B

U
IL

D
IN

G
 

• 
D

E
T

R
O

IT
 

4
8

2
2

6
CONDIT AND M cGARRY, P. C.

Richard P. Condit
860 West Long Lake Road 
B loom field  H ills, Michigan 48013 
Telephone: (313) 645-5205 
Attorneys for Southfield Public Schools

H ARTM AN , BEIER, H O W LE TT , M cC O NNE LL 
& GOOGASIAN

74 West Long Lake Road 
B loom field  H ills , Michigan 48013 
Telephone: (313) 645-9400
Attorneys for School D istrict of the City of Royal Oak

Kenneth B. McConnell

5-