Emergency Motion of Defendants For a Stay or Suspension of Proceedings

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,
Plaintiffs,

v s .

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,
Defendants,

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

Intervening Defendant,
and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

Intervening Defendants.

No. 35257

EMERGENCY MOTION OF DEFENDANTS WILLIAM 
G. MILLIKEN, GOVERNOR; FRANK J. KELLEY,

' ATTORNEY GENERAL; STATE BOARD OF EDUCA­
TION AND JOHN W. PORTER, SUPERINTENDENT 
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, FOR A STAY OR 
SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS

Defendants William G. Milliken, Governor; Frank J. 
Kelley, Attorney General; State Board of Education, and John 
W. Porter, Superintendent of Public Instruction, by their 
attorneys, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, et al, move the 
Court for emergency consideration and a stay or suspension of 
tile proceedings ordered by the Court in its "Order for Develop­
ment of Plan of Desegregation" entered June 14, 19 72.. This 
motion is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
62 and pursuant to 28 USCA 2101(f).



In support of this motion the state defendants respect­
fully represent and show that:

1. There is now pending in the Supreme Court of the 
United States the state defendants' petition for a writ of 
certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered on February 23, 1972 (dis­
missing defendants' appeal) and to pass upon the questions of
de jure segregation in the Detroit Public Schools and the propriety 
of a metropolitan remedy. Further, the state defendants have 
filed with the Supreme Court of the United States a supplemental 
brief to their petition for a writ of certiorari informing the 
Supreme Court of the contents of this Court's injunctive order 
of June 14, 1972, and asking the Supreme Court to take jurisdic­
tion of this cause and pass upon the questions stated above.
State defendants have been informed by the clerk of the Supreme 
Court that their petition for certiorari will be submitted to the 
Court for its action during the present term of the Court.

2. They will take a timely appeal from said order 
dated June 14, 1972, to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 
and will diligently pursue such appeal to a final decision.

3. There is pending for decision before the Supreme 
Court of the United States a case in which a number of the funda­
mental issues in the case at bar will be decided. Keyes v School 
District No. 21, Denver, Colorado, 445 F 2d 990 (CA 10, 1971), 
cert granted 404 US 1036 (Jan 17, 1971).

4. The decision of the United States District Court 
granting a remedy substantially similar to that directed by this 
Court's order of June 14, 1972, was reversed by a United States

- 2-



Court of Appeals. Bradley v School Board of the City of Richmond,
Virginia, ___ F 2d ___ (Case Nos 72-1058 to 72-1060 and 72-1150,
June 5, 1972). The fact of reversal is even more compelling 
because the Richmond case arose under the circumstances of public 
schools being segregated by race by state constitutional and 
statutory provisions and the metropolitan remedy was decreed only 
after a trial involving the adjoining school districts which 
resulted in findings of de jure segregation as to such school 
districts.

5. This Court has made no findings of de jure segrega­
tion as to either the establishment of the boundaries of the 
affected school districts or the conduct of 52 of the school 
districts in the desegregation area. Further, this Court has 
expressly found no de jure segregation as to faculty and staff 
within the Detroit Public Schools. Yet, the opinion and order
of this Court issued June 14, 1972, compel metropolitan desegrega­
tion of grades K-6, as an irreducible minimum subject to a heavy 
burden of proof, and 10% black faculty and staff at each school 
within the desegregation area by the Fall, 1972 term.

6. It is respectfully submitted that this Court's 
opinion and order of June 14, 1972, go beyond any federal 
appellate precedents in school desegregation cases. Thus, 
there exists a substantial probability that this Court will 
be reversed on appeal.

7. Thus, absent a stay or suspension of this Court's 
order of June 14, 1972:

"It.would subject the students and parents, 
faculty and administration, to the trauma 
of reassignments, with little likelihood 
that such reassignments would continue for 
any appreciable time."

- 3-



This quote is from page 4 of this Court's Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law on Detroit—Only Plans of Desegregation issued 
March 28, 1972. These considerations are equally applicable to 
the hundreds of thousands of children and thousands of teachers 
and administrators that, absent a stay, will be reassigned for 
the Fall, 1972 term only to be reassigned again in the event of 
a reversal on appeal.

8. In addition, absent a stay on appeal, the educa­
tional programs, finances, contractual relationships and provi­
sions for governance of 53 school districts will be substantially 
disrupted, all subject to the possibility of reversal on appeal, 
and the subsequent need to re-establish such programs, finances, 
contractual relationships and governance provisions for each of 
these 53 school districts.

9. This Court should, in the exercise of its sound 
discretion, grant this motion, thus preserving the status quo and 
preventing irreparable harm to the people of the State of Michigan, 
pending full and final appellate review of this cause.

10. _ This Court's order of June 14, 1972, compels the 
Superintendent of Public Instruction to appoint a designee to 
serve on a 9 member panel charged with formulating proposed interim 
and final desegregation plans. Further, the Court has ordered
the state defendants to bear all reasonable costs incurred by the 
panel. The state defendants submit that under Michigan law they 
possess neither the power of taxation nor the power to appropriate 
state funds. See Const. 1963, Article IX, Sections 1 and 17.
The Michigan legislature has not appropriated any funds to pay 
the expenses of such panel. Consequently, the effect of this 
Court's order is to compel the state defendants to disburse funds 
beyond their lawful authority and practical ability to so do.

4-



11. This Court's order of June 14, 1972, compels defend­
ant State Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruc­
tion, in contravention of their limited power under state law,
to disapprove all proposals for new construction or expansion of 
existing facilities when housing patterns in the area would result 
in schools largely segregated by race. It is respectfully sub­
mitted that, given the existing housing patterns in the desegrega­
tion area, literal compliance with this portion of the Court's 
order will result in a ban on much new construction and expansion 
of existing facilities within the desegregation area to the 
detriment of the school children to be served by such construction 
or expansion.

12. The order of June 14, 1972, compels all defendants 
to take immediate action concerning the establishment and expan­
sion of faculty and staff inservice training, the creation of 
bi-racial committees, the employment of black counselors and
the requiring of bi-racial and non-discriminatory extra-curricular 
activities. This part of the Court's order extends to the entire 
desegregation area. Yet, 18 of the school districts included in 
such area are.not parties to this litigation. Thus as to these 
18 school districts presumably the burden falls upon the state 
defendants to carry out this Court's order in the respects 
enumerated above as to these 18 school districts. Such action 
by the state defendants, in contravention of their lawful powers 
under Michigan law, will require substantial effort by the state 
defendants at a time when most of the faculty and staff are away 
from their jobs during the summer vacation as provided for in 
their respective contractual agreements. Moreover as indicated 
in paragraph 10, supra, your defendants are without lawful means 
to pay for the same.

5-



13. This Court's order of June 14, 1972, requires the 
Superintendent of Public Instruction, with assistance from the 
other state defendants, to make recommendations within the 45 day 
period, for appropriate interim and final arrangements concerning 
the financial, contractual, administrative and school governance 
aspects for the entire desegregation area. Further, by express 
direction of tnis Court the Superintendent must make such recom­
mendations independently of the contents of those state laws he 
.is pledged to uphold in his oath of office.

14. Clearly the order of June 14, 1972, has set in
motion a chain of events which must result in substantial imple­
mentation of student and faculty desegregation in the desegrega­
tion area for the Fall, 1972 term. It is respectfully submitted 
that, in the absence of a stay order, this judicially mandated 
ongoing process will result in chaos and confusion for the 
students, parents, teachers, administrators and school districts 
affected to their irreparable injury. .

15. This ongoing process will occur in the summer, when 
many school administrators, as provided in their contracts, are 
under no obligation to be present and to work in their respective 
school districts. Further, under Michigan tenure law, tenure 
teachers in Michigan have until July 1 to determine whether they 
will return in the following school year to their school districts 
of present employment. See Article V, Section 1 of 1937 PA 4
(Ex Sess), MCLA 38.111; MSA 15.2011. Absent a stay order, these 
tenure teachers will be unable to intelligently evaluate whether 
they wish to return in the fall for employment since they will 
be unable to determine, as a result of this Court's order, the 
school and school district in which they will be teaching in the 
Fall, 1972 term.

- 6-



16. The order of June 14, 1972, establishing a 
desegregation area comprised of 53 school districts and setting in 
motion a complete rearrangement of the governance, finance and 
administrative aspects of such desegregation area, all contrary
to the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan and without 
any declaration by this Court as to which, if any, of such present 
Michigan constitutional and statutory provisions are violative of 
the Fourteenth Amendment, constitutes irreparable injury to the 
people of the State of Michigan as being violative of their rights 
under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

17. It is respectfully submitted that this Court's 
inclusion of 18 scnool districts in the desegregation area that are 
not parties to this cause constitutes a denial of due process of 
law to the residents of such school districts in contravention of 
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. '

.18. The requirements of this Court's order that no 
school, grade or classroom be substantially disproportionate to 
the overall pupil racial composition, and that 10% of the faculty 
and staff at each school be black and that every effort be made 
to have bi-racial administrative teams where there is more than
one building administrator constitute impermissible racial balance 
quotas.

Wherefore, the state defendants respectfully request 
this Honorable Court to give emergency consideration to their motion 
for stay or suspension of this Court's order of June 14, 1972, and

- 7-



to grant state defendants' motion for stay or suspension of this 
Court's order of June 14, 1972, pending their application for 
certiorari or, alternatively, pending their appeal to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Respectfully submitted,
FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

Eugene Krasicky 0
Gerald F. Young 
George McCargar
Assistant Attorneys General

Attorneys for William G. Milliken, 
Governor; Frank J. Kelley, Attorney 
General; State Board of Education 
and John W. Porter, Superintendent 
of Public Instruction, Defendants.

Dated: June 19, 1972

- 8-



STATE OF MICHIGAN )
) s S •COUNTY OF INGHAM )

On this 19th day of June, 1972, personally appeared 
before me, a notary public in said county, Eugene Krasicky, 
to me known, who made oath that he has read the foregoing motion 
by him subscribed and that the facts stated therein are true.

C ; -  , , ^ - - 7  

SANDRA J. S Z UL /'
Notary Public, Ingham County, 
Michigan
My commission expires May 19, 1975



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,
Plaintiffs,

vs.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,

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

Intervening Defendant,
and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

Intervening Defendants.ET AL.

No. 35257

NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION
TO: LOUIS R. LUCAS

WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 
Attorneys for Bradley, et al 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
J. HAROLD FLANNERY
PAUL R. DIMOND
ROBERT PRESSMAN
Center for Law & Education
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass. 02138
JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N. Y. 10019
NATHANIEL R. JONES 
General Counsel, NAACP 
1790 Broadway 
New York, N. Y. 10019
E. WINTHER McCROOM 
3245 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45207
BRUCE MILLER 
LUCILLE WATTS
Attorneys for Legal Redress Committee NAACP Detroit Branch 
2460 1st National Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

10



ALEXANDER B. RITCHIE
Attorney for Defendants-Intervenors Denise Magdowski, et al 2555 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
RILEY & ROUMELL 
George T. Roumell, Jr.
Attorneys for Defendant-Detroit Board of Education 7th Floor, Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
THEODORE SACHS
Attorney for Defendant-Intervenor, Detroit Federation of Teachers 1000 Farmer Street 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
HARTMAN, BEIER, HOWLETT, McCONNELL & GOOGASIAN 
Kenneth B. McConnell
Attorneys for School District of City of Royal Oak 74 West Long Lake Road 
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013
CONDIT & McGARRY 
Richard P. Condit
Attorneys for Southfield Public Schools 
860 West Long Lake Road 
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013
BUTZEL, LONG, GUST, KLEIN & VAN ZILE 
William M. Saxton
Attorneys for Allen Park Public Schools, et al 
1881 First National Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
HILL, LEWIS, ADAMS, GOODRICH & TAIT 
Douglas H. West & Robert B. Webster 
Attorneys for Grosse Pointe Public Schools 
3700 Penobscot Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
ROBERT J. LORD
Attorney for Kerry Green Tri-County Citizens8388 Dixie Highway
Fair Haven, Michigan 48023

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, THAT the foregoing Emergency Motion 
for a Stay or Suspension of Proceedings will be brought on for hearing 
before Honorable Stephen J. Roth, United States District Judge, at 
such time and place as the court may direct.

Respectively submitted,
FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

Eug'ene Krasicky 
Gerald F . Young 
George McCargar
Assistant Attorneys General

Dated: June 19, 1972 Attorneys for William G. Milliken, 
Governor; Frank J. Kelley, Attorney 
General; State Board of Education 
and John W. Porter, Superintendent 
of Public Instruction, Defendants11