Motion for Oral Argument

3 pages

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Impact area
- Education
Topic
- School Desegregation
LDF Attorney
- Norman J. Chachkin
Cooperating Attorneys
Organizations
Matter
- Milliken v. Bradley
Case
- Milliken v. Bradley
U.S. state
- Michigan
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- a860c763-54e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0

Cite this item

Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Motion for Oral Argument, 1974. a860c763-54e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/c01a93d5-60fa-45d3-94f1-91a34302c9cf/motion-for-oral-argument. Accessed July 06, 2025.

Copied!

    WILLIAM

-vs-
RONALD

• •
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER TERM 1973

NOS. 73-434, 73-435, 73-436

G. MILLIKEN, et al.,
Petitioners,

1. BRADLEY, et ad. ,
Respondents

______________________________________/

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT BY 
RESPONDENTS BOARD OF EDUCATION 
FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE 
CITY OF DETROIT, ET AL._______

GEORGE T. ROUMELL, JR.,
Counsel for Respondents, Board of 
Education for the School District 
of the City of Detroit, ei: al.
720 Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: (313) 962-8255



MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT BY RESPONDENTS 
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT 
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, ET AL._____________

NOW COMES Board of Education for the School District 
of the city of Detroit, et al., Respondents in the above-entitled 
and numbered causes, (hereinafter Respondent Detroit Board), 
through their counsel, George T. Roumell, Jr., and respectfully
request this Honorable Court to grant their counsel ten minutes

*

to present oral argument during the oral arguments scheduled 
for Wednesday, February 27, 1974.

The reasons in support of this motion are:

1. Respondent Detroit Board has filed a substantial 
Brief before this Honorable Court in the above-entitled causes. 
The topics covered by this Brief differ in some respects from 
the topics covered in the Briefs of other Respondents and Amici 
Curiae favorable to Respondents’ cause.

2. Respondent Detroit Board is the only Respondent 
who is an integral part of the Michigan public school system with 
a working knowledge of Michigan public school education. This 
working knowledge is reflected in the Brief of Respondent 
Detroit Board and will be of assistance to this Honorable Court, 
during oral argument, on such topics as:

(a) State control over all aspects of 
Michigan public school education;
(b) The constitutional inadequacy of a 
Detroit-only remedy;



• •
(c) The demographic characteristics of the 
metropolitan Detroit community; and
(d) The inappropriateness of a remand, as 
proposed by the Solicitor General of the 
United States.

3. The Solicitor General of the United States has 
sought fifteen minutes oral argument, in addition to that time 
previously granted to Petitioners and Respondent Ronald Bradley. 
Although the Solicitor General alleges that he does not fully 
support either the Petitioners or Respondents, his position 
is opposed to that of Respondent Detroit Board. Respondent 
Detroit Board believes that the Solicitor General, in his Motion, 
has erroneously characterized the proposed remedies as involving 
"effective consolidation" of the Detroit School System "with 
neighboring suburban school districts". Furthermore, Respondent 
Detroit Board does not agree with the Solicitor General's 
announced intention to seek a more extensive remand than that 
ordered by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

WHEREFORE, Respondent Detroit Board prays that this 
Honorable Court grant its counsel ten minutes to present oral 
argument during the oral arguments scheduled for Wednesday, 
February 27, 1974.

Dated: February 15, 1974.

Respectfully submitted,

BY:
GEORGE T y ROUME!

Counsel for Respondents, Board of 
Education for the School District 
of the City of Detroit, et al.
720 Ford Building 
Detrpit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: (313) 962-8255

- 2 -

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Motion for Oral Argument

Impact area

Topic

LDF Attorney

Cooperating Attorneys

Organizations

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in