Petition for Permission to Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. §192 (b)

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al, U.S. Court of

Appeals No.
Defendants-Appellants, 72-8002

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

Defendant-Intervenor,

and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

Defendants-Intervenor 
__________________ ____________________/

I

U.S. District 
Court No. 35257

l

PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL 
UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1292 (b)____

BUTZEL, LONG, GUST, KLEIN & VAN ZILE
William M. Saxton
John B. Weaver
Robert M. Vercruysse
1881 First National Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Counsel for Allen Park Public
Schools, et al
CONDIT & McGARRY, P.C.
Richard P. Condit 
860 W. Long Lake Road 
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013 
Counsel for Southfield Public 
Schools

HILL, LEWIS, ADAMS, GOODRICH & TAIT
Douglas H. West
Robert B. Webster
3700 Penobscot Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Counsel for Grosse Pointe
Public Schools

HARTMAN, BEIER, HOWLETT, 
McConnell & googasian 
Kenneth B. McConnell 
74 W. Long Lake Road 
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013 
Counsel for School District 
of the City of Royal Oak



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al, U.S. Court of
Appeals No.

Defendants-Appellants, 72-8002

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

Defendant-Intervenor,
and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,
Defendants-Intervenor 

______________________________________ /

PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL 
_____UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1292 (b)

Allen Park Public Schools, et al, Grosse Pointe Public School 
Southfield Public Schools and School District of the City of 
Royal Oak, by and through their attorneys, respectively being 
Butzel, Long, Gust, Klein & Van Zile; Hill, Lewis, Adams, Goodrich 
& Tait; Condit & McGarry, P.C.; and Hartman, Beier, Howlett, 
McConnell & Googasian, hereby petition this Court, pursuant to 
28 U.S.C. §1292 (b) and Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Appellate 
Procedure, for permission to appeal from certain Orders of the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,

U.S. District 
Courf No. 35257



Southern Division, which Orders involve several controlling 
questions of law. There has heretofore been filed with this 
Court, as Appendices A through E of the Petition for Permission 
to Appeal filed by the State Defendants, those Orders and Findings 
of Fact and Conclusions of Law containing said controlling issues, 
respectively dated September 27, 1971, March 24, 1972, March 
28, 1972, June 14, 1972 and July 11, 1972, which Orders and 
Findings of Fact and conclusions of law are hereby incorporated 
herein by reference. There is 'attached hereto, as Exhibit I, 
the Ruling and Order on Petitions for Intervention, entered 

by this Court on May 15, 1972. 
v I

The Statement of Facts necessary to an understanding of 
the controlling questions of law are as follows.

Petitioners are 33 autonomous municipal bodies corporate, being 
geographically and politically independent school districts organized 
and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Michigan, and 
respectively governed by duly elected Boards of Education.

On September 27, 19 71 the District Court issued its "Ruling __ 
on Issue of Segregation", (Appendix A - State Defendants Petition) 
which was solely concerned with the issue of whether the Detroit 
Public School System was operated so as to impair the constitu­
tional rights of the Plaintiffs within the City of Detroit. On 
November 5, 1971, however, the District Court issued an Order 
requiring the State Defendants to submit a plan of desegregation 
for the School District of the City of Detroit involving all

2



school districts in the Detroit metropolitan area, including 
your Petitioners. Such a metropolitan plan was filed by the 
State Defendants on February 4, 1972, and accordingly, on February 
9, February 16 and February 17, respectively, Petitioners filed 
Motions to Intervene in the proceedings before the District Court 
for the purpose of representing the interests of the parents 
and children situated within such school districts with respect 
to such proposed metropolitan plan of desegregation.

On March 15, 1972, the District Court entered its Ruling 
and Order on Petitions for Intervention (Exhibit I) granting 
Petitioners' Motions to Intervene as a matter of right. This 
Order, however, imposed substantial conditions on Petitioners' 
participation in the proceedings.
■ On March 24, 1972, the District Court entered its "Ruling
on Propriety of Considering a Metropolitan Remedy to Accomplish 
Desegregation of the Public Schools of the City of Detroit , 
(Appendix C - State Defendants Petition) which ruling held, in 
essence, that it was within the power of the Court to include 
in a plan of desegregation for one school district other autonomous, 
geographically and politically independent school districts , 
even in the absence of any proofs on findings of acts constitut­
ing de jure segregation on the part of said districts.

On March 28, 1972, the District Court entered its "Findings 
of Fact and Conclusions of Lav; on Detroit-Only Plans of Desegre­
gation", (Appendix B - State Defendants Petition) which, in effect,

3



f

held that because of the racial proportions of black and white 
students within the School District of the City of Detroit it 
would be necessary for the Court to implement a desegregation 
order involving school districts suburban to the City of Detroit.

On June 14, 1972, the District Court entered its "Ruling 
on Desegregation Area and Order for Development of Plan of Dese­
gregation", (Appendix D - State Defendants Petition) and its 
"Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" in support thereof.

In such findings, the Court stated:
". . . .It should be noted that the Court has taken no
proofs with respect to the establishment of the boundaries 
of the 86 public school districts in the counties of Wayne, 
Oakland and Macomb, nor on the issue of whether, with the 
exclusion of the City of Detroit School District, such school 
districts have committed acts of de_ jure segregation."

Notwithstanding this candid admission, the District Court's Order
of June 14, 1972 directed that final details be formulated for
a plan of desegregation for the School District of the City of
Detroit involving 52 other independent school districts and the
transportation and transfer of pupils as between said school
districts ". . .to the end that, upon implementation, no school,
grade or classroom be substantially disproportionate to the overall
pupil racial composition" of all school districts involved in

the Court's Order.
On July 11, 1972, the District Court entered its "Order 

for Acquisition of Transportation", (Appendix E - State Defendants 
Petition) which required that the Detroit Board of Education

4



acquire at least 295 buses for the purpose of transporting pupils, 
and that the State Defendants bear the cost thereof.

On July 20, 1972, this Court entered its Order granting 
the Petition of the State Defendants for permission to appeal 

under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1292 (b) .
II

The questions of law which Petitioners submit to this Court

for determination are as follows: (1)
1. Where a single school district has been found to have 

committed acts of de jure segregation, may a court properly issue 
a desegregation order extending to other geographically and pol­
itically independent and autonomous school districts and require 
inter-district transfers and transportation of the students resident 
within such school districts, (i) absent any claim or finding
that such other school districts are themselves guilty of de 
jure segregation, or (ii) absent any claim or finding that the 
boundary lines of such school districts were created and/or main­
tained for the purpose of creating or fostering a dual school

system? „
2. Based on the record in this case, can a constitutionally

sufficient plan of desegregation limited to the geographical
______________________________________ ____________________________________ /

(1) Although Petitioners concur with the questions presented in 
State Defendants Petition for Permission to Appeal, particularly 
those questions relating to the District Court's September 27, 197 
"Ruling on Issue of Segregation", the questions presented herein 
by Petitioners are limited solely to those which directly and sub 
stantially affect their interests. .

5



boundaries of the School District of the City of Detroit, be 
ordered by the District Court for the desegregation of the School 
District of the City of Detroit.

3. Was the District Court without jurisdiction to enter 
its Order of June 14, 1972 because of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 
§2281 which vests exclusive jurisdiction in a United States district 
court of three judges in proceedings involving a restraint of
the enforcement, operation or execution of State statutes?

4. Based on the record in these proceedings, did the District 
Court deny to Petitioners, and other independent school districts 
similarly situated, due process of lav;?
, Ill

The Scope of the remedy proposed by the District Court is 
broader and more far reaching than any other proposed remedial 
order ever heretofore entertained by a District Court in a school 
desegregation case. Among the questions^presented above, there 
are questions of first impression which have never been decided 
by this Court or by the Supreme Court of the United States. 
Accordingly, a substantial basis for difference of opinion exists 
as to all of the above questions. It is therefore respectfully 
submitted that the granting of permission to appeal by this 
Court with respect to the Orders and Findings of Fact and Conclusions 
of Law heretofore entered by the District Court, and the questions 
presented above will materially advance the ultimate termination 

of the within litigation.

6



WHEREFORE, your Petitioners pray that this Petition for 
Permission to Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. §1292 (b) be granted, and 
that the same be set for hearing on August 24, 1972 and be subject 
to the briefing schedule ordered by this Court on July 20, 1972.

Respectfully submitted,
BUTZEL, LONG, GUST, KLEIN & VAN ZILE

William M. Saxton 
1881 First National Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Counsel for Allen Park Public 
Schools, et al

HILL, LEWIS, ADAMS, GOODRICH & TAIT

By________________________________ _Douglas H. West 
3700 Penobscot Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Counsel for Grosse Pointe 
Public Schools .

CONDIT & MeGARRY, P.C.

By___________ ___ ,---------------- -Richard-P. Condit 
860 W. Long Lake Road 
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013 
Counsel for Southfield Public 
Schools

HARTMAN, BEIER, HOWLETT, McCONNELL 
& GOOGASIAN

B y ___________ _ ______________ ___Kenneth B. McConnell 
74 W. Long Lake Road 
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013 
Counsel for School District 
of the City of Royal Oak

Dated: July 28, 1972

7