Memo of Law in Support of Pleading

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )
)

Plaintiffs, )
)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION
) NO. 35257

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., )
)

Defendants. )
)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSIVE PLEADING 
BY DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS KERRY GREEN, ET AL,

The defendants-intervenors Kerry Green, et al., submit the following 

memorandum of law in support of their responsive pleading to the plaintiffs’ 

amended complaint to conform to evidence:

The Supreme Court does not sit as a super-legislature to determine the 

wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business 

affairs, or social conditions. Mr. Justice Douglas delivering the opinion of 

the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482.

The child is not the mere creature of the State and the fundamental 

right of parents to educate their children as they choose is made applicable 

to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pierce v . 

Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, at 482.

School children are "persons" within the meaning of the Bill of Rights 

and they are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect. 

linker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503, 511; Mr. Justice Douglas 

dissenting in part in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 243.

1



•  *

Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults 

alone. In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13.

The makers of the Constitution conferred upon individuals, as against 

the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights 

and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every 

unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, 

whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amend­

ment. Mr. Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 

438, 479.

Without doubt, liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution denotes more 

than mere freedom from bodily restraint and includes, among other things, the 

right of the individual to marry, establish a home and bring up children and 

generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential 

to the orderly pursuit of happiness of free men. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 

390, 399.

Although the Court has not assumed to define ’liberty' with any great 

precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. 

Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual 

is free to pursue. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499.

The specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbral zones of 

guaranteed liberties and privacies protected as much from governmental

invasion as the specific guarantees. Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, 484-486.

The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the framers 

of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, 

protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those funda-

2



mental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional 

amendments. The Ninth Amendment reads, nThe enumeration in the Constitution, 

of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained 

by the people.” Mr. Justice Goldberg, joined by Mr. Chief Justice Warren and 

Mr. Justice Brennan, concurring in Griswold v, Connecticut, supra, at 488.

and spend significant time each day being transported to a distant school 

suffers an impairment of his liberty and privacy. Mr. Justice Powell con­

curring in part and dissenting in part in Keyes v. School District No. 1,

of Mr. Justice Powell at page 32).

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when 

the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Olmstead v. United States, supra, 

at 479.

When remedial desegregation orders extend to the transportation of 

students, the full burden of the affirmative remedial action is borne by 

children and parents who did not participate in any constitutional violation. 

Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, supra, separate opinion of 

Mr. Justice Powell at page 34.

Any child, white or black, who is compelled to leave his neighborhood

Denver, Colorado, ___ U.S. ___ (slip opinion June 21, 1973, separate opinion

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT J. LORD
Attorney for Defendants- 
Intervenors Kerry Green et al. 

8388 Dixie Highway 
Fair Haven, Michigan 48023

3