Motion for Oral Argument
Public Court Documents
February 15, 1974
3 pages
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 December 04, 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 -