Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al . , )
)

• - »

Plaintiffs, >
)

C.n

V. > MEMORANDUM IN
) SUPPORT OF • -

WILLIAM G . MXLLIKEN, et a l . , ) MOTION TO
> INTERVENE

Defendants )
)
)DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, CIVIL ACTION

LOCAL #231, AMERICAN FEDERATION > NO. 35257
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIG, )

)
Defendant- )
Intervener )

)V>
)
)
)
\)

and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al . ,

Defendants-
Intervener. )

)

Section 902 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 

U.S.C. 2000h-2) and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules or 

Civil Procedure authorise the Attorney General to inter­

vene in this action as of right. H.R. Rep. No. 914, 88th 

Cong., 1st Sess. 22 (1963); 110 Cong. Rec. 2256-61, 
2278-69 (1964); (House Debate) 110 Cong. Rec. 13464-67, 

13905-6, 13901-2 (1954); (Senate Debate); Singleton v. 

Jackson Municipal Separate School District, ec al., 34b 

F.2d 729 (5th Cir., 1965), Lemon v. Bossier Parish School 
Board, 240 F. Supp. 709, 715 (W.D. La. 1965).



, f

Although an application to intervene must d<<—J L 4.

* c  i m e  1 ' t h a t  d a ' c s r m i :

s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f .

B r i l l i n g  C o r p . 3 4 2 7  :

v .  T a n  o '  -*■ ('•••» i p a h o a  P a r i s h

( T ? T o
J U G .  1. J \J J  ) * M r *  *5

1 0 6 5 ( 5 r *  -  r »w U  W  U- « -  * 1 9 7 0

i vi o n s  a i t  L . o  C h e m i c a 1  C o

J. Moore, Federal Practice, Sec. 24.13[1] (196S). 

re the Attorney General’s application was•filed sin

Cl. —  a 5Ju L.Lit2 President’s message to Congress in which

ha proposed significant legislation relevant to the

relief in this case and directed the Justice Department

to s e ek int erv en t ion in selected cases.
But minus the argument of timely application pur-

suanr to Congressional interest, "timeliness is not
absolute and should be evaluated m  the light or all 

cireurnstances.” Atkins v . Stats Board of Education of 

Forth Caroline, 418 F.2d 874 (4th Cir., 1959). Indeed, 

it has been held that timeliness in the case of inter­

vention of right is limit 
McDonald v . E.J. Lavlno Co., supra 

applicant may intervene £ 
exercise its discretion in denying with greater reluctance. 

Diaz, supra, at 1126; J. Moore, supra, at 24.13[1].

, to the question or prej-

, supra. And wner e on

of right, the 0  O cf i. L will

2



ConeInsion

'or the above reasons, it is requested that

e Attorney General*s motion to intervene be

Respectfully submittea0