On remand, Bradley v. Milliken, 402 F. Supp. 1096 (E.D. Mich. 1975); affirmed and remanded, 540 F.2d 229 (6th Cir. 1976); cert. granted, 429U.S. 958 (1976); affirmed, 433U.S. 267 (1977).
Holding
The Court held that "[w]ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect," the district court's remedy was "wholly impermissible" and not justified by Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
The ruling clarified the distinction between de jure and de facto segregation, confirming that segregation was allowed if it was not considered an explicit policy of each school district. In particular, the Court held that the school systems were not responsible for desegregation across district lines unless it could be shown that they had each deliberately engaged in a policy of segregation. The case did not expand on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971),[3] the first major Supreme Court case concerning school busing.
Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark desegregation ruling, but difficult to implement. The case also did not take into account many sources of segregation in the US, including an ongoing migration of Black people into cities, white flight to the suburbs, and policies and practices that barred non-whites from suburban housing. By the 1970s, many urban school districts had super-majorities of black students.[4]Educational segregation was therefore widespread, with informal racial barriers in the form of numerous thinly disguised practices that opposed Black people living in suburbs.
Detroit
Detroit is one of the most segregated cities in the United States.[5][6] During the Great Migration, the city gained a large black population, which was excluded upon arrival from white neighborhoods. This exclusion was enforced by economic discrimination (redlining), exclusionary clauses in property deeds, as well as violence (destruction of property including arson and bombings, as well as assault).[7] Some of the discriminatory policies in Detroit ended as public awareness increased and became more sensitive to the national civil rights movement, which began after World War II, and as black voting power in city precincts increased. The changes allowed Black people to move into additional neighborhoods in the City, but some neighborhoods resisted and for the most part little or no change of segregative practices occurred in the suburbs.
By the mid-70s, more than two-thirds of students in the Detroit school system were black.[4]
Procedural history
On August 18, 1970, the NAACP filed suit against Michigan state officials, including Governor William Milliken. The original trial began on April 6, 1971, and lasted for 41 days. The NAACP argued that although schools were not officially segregated (white only), the city of Detroit and the State as represented by its surrounding counties had enacted policies to increase racial segregation in schools. The NAACP also suggested a direct relationship between unfair housing practices (such as redlining) and educational segregation.[8] District Judge Stephen J. Roth initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the "implementation of the April 7 plan was [unconstitutionally] thwarted by State action in the form of the Act of the Legislature of Michigan" and remanded the case for an expedited trial on the merits.[9]
On remand to the District Court, Judge Roth held the State of Michigan and the school districts accountable for the segregation,[10] and ordered the implementation of a desegregation plan.[11]
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed some of the decision,[12] specifically the official segregation that had been practiced by the City's school district, but withheld judgment on the relationship of housing segregation with education. The Court specified that it was the state's responsibility to integrate across the segregated metropolitan area.[13]
The accused officials appealed to the Supreme Court, which took up the case on February 27, 1974.[8]
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts in a 5-to-4 decision, holding that school districts were not obligated to desegregate unless it had been proven that the lines were drawn with racist intent on the part of the districts. Thus, superficially arbitrary lines drawn by State agencies which produced segregated districts were not illegal.[4][14]
The Court held that "[w]ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect," the district court's remedy was "wholly impermissible" and not justified by Brown v. Board of Education. The Court noted that desegregation, "in the sense of dismantling a dual school system," did not require "any particular racial balance in each 'school, grade or classroom.'" The Court agreed that the Constitutional rights of Black people had been violated by the City' school district; the segregative results involving suburban districts did not make suburban districts nor the State of Michigan responsible.[13]
The Court also emphasized the importance of local control over the operation of schools.
School district lines, however innocently drawn, will surely be perceived as fences to separate the races when, under a Detroit-only decree, white parents withdraw their children from the Detroit city schools and move to the suburbs in order to continue them in all-white schools.[15]
Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion stated that:
Today's decision ... means that there is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause though the schools are segregated by race and though the black schools are not only "separate" but "inferior."... Michigan by one device or another has over the years created black school districts and white school districts, the task of equity is to provide a unitary system for the affected area where, as here, the State washes its hands of its own creations.[16]
Impact of the case
The Supreme Court's decision required the City of Detroit's school district to redistribute the relatively small number of white students more widely across the district. According to Wayne State professor John Mogk, the decision also enabled the white flight that re-entrenched the city's segregation.[8] The Detroit Public Schools became even more disproportionately black over the next two decades (with 90% black students in 1987).[13]
This result reaffirmed the national pattern of city schools attended mostly by Black people, with surrounding suburban schools mostly attended by Whites.[13][17]
^ abcWilliam L. Taylor, Desegregating Urban School Systems After Milliken v. Bradley, 21 Wayne L. Rev. 751 (1975).
^Sugrue, Thomas J. (26 March 2011). "A Dream Still Deferred". New York Times. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
^Darden, Joe; Rahbar, Mohammad; Jezierski, Louise; Li, Min; Velie, Ellen (1 January 2010). "The Measurement of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Characteristics and Black and White Residential Segregation in Metropolitan Detroit: Implications for the Study of Social Disparities in Health". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 100 (1): 137–158. doi:10.1080/00045600903379042. S2CID 129692931. In 2000, metropolitan Detroit was the most racially segregated large metropolitan area in the United States (Dn, Stokes, and Thomas 2007). Accompanying such extreme racial residential segregation is extreme class segregation.
^Reynolds Farley; Sheldon Danziger; Harry J. Holzer (2002). "The Evolution of Racial Segregation". Detroit divided. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN9780871542816.
^ abcSamantha Meinke, Milliken v. Bradley: The Northern Battle for Desegregation, 90 Mich. Bar J. 20 (Sept. 2011).
^Bradley v. Milliken, 433 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1970).
^Bradley v. Milliken, 338 F. Supp. 582 (E.D. Mich. 1971).
^Bradley v. Milliken, 345 F. Supp. 914 (E.D. Mich. 1972).
^Bradley v. Milliken, 484 F.2d 215 (6th Cir. 1973).
^ abcdRobert A. Sedler, The Profound Impact of Milliken v. Bradley, 33 Wayne L. Rev. 1693 (1987).
^James, David R. (December 1989). "City Limits on Racial Equality: The Effects of City-Suburb Boundaries on Public-School Desegregation, 1968-1976". American Sociological Review. 54 (6): 963–985. doi:10.2307/2095718. JSTOR 2095718.
^Milliken, 418 U.S. at 804-05 (Marshall, J., dissenting).
^Milliken, 418 U.S. at 761-62 (Douglas, J., dissenting).
^Nadworthy, Elissa; Turner, Cory (25 July 2019). "This Supreme Court Case Made School District Lines A Tool For Segregation". NPR.
External links
Works related to Milliken v. Bradley at Wikisource
Text of Milliken v. Bradley, 418U.S. 717 (1974) is available from:CornellCourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
February 17, 2023
milliken, bradley, 1974, significant, united, states, supreme, court, case, dealing, with, planned, desegregation, busing, public, school, students, across, district, lines, among, school, districts, metropolitan, detroit, concerned, plans, integrate, public, . Milliken v Bradley 418 U S 717 1974 was a significant United States Supreme Court case dealing with the planned desegregation busing of public school students across district lines among 53 school districts in metropolitan Detroit 1 It concerned the plans to integrate public schools in the United States following the Brown v Board of Education 1954 decision 2 Milliken v BradleySupreme Court of the United StatesArgued February 27 1974Decided July 25 1974Full case nameMilliken Governor of Michigan et al v Bradley et al Citations418 U S 717 more 94 S Ct 3112 41 L Ed 2d 1069 1974 U S LEXIS 94Case historyPriorBradley v Milliken 433 F 2d 897 6th Cir 1970 438 F 2d 945 6th Cir 1971 338 F Supp 582 E D Mich 1971 345 F Supp 914 E D Mich 1972 affirmed 484 F 2d 215 6th Cir 1973 cert granted 414 U S 1038 1973 SubsequentOn remand Bradley v Milliken 402 F Supp 1096 E D Mich 1975 affirmed and remanded 540 F 2d 229 6th Cir 1976 cert granted 429 U S 958 1976 affirmed 433 U S 267 1977 HoldingThe Court held that w ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect the district court s remedy was wholly impermissible and not justified by Brown v Board of Education 1954 Court membershipChief Justice Warren E Burger Associate Justices William O Douglas William J Brennan Jr Potter Stewart Byron WhiteThurgood Marshall Harry BlackmunLewis F Powell Jr William RehnquistCase opinionsMajorityBurger joined by Stewart Blackmun Powell RehnquistConcurrenceStewartDissentDouglasDissentWhite joined by Douglas Brennan MarshallDissentMarshall joined by Douglas Brennan WhiteLaws appliedU S Const amend XIVThe ruling clarified the distinction between de jure and de facto segregation confirming that segregation was allowed if it was not considered an explicit policy of each school district In particular the Court held that the school systems were not responsible for desegregation across district lines unless it could be shown that they had each deliberately engaged in a policy of segregation The case did not expand on Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education 1971 3 the first major Supreme Court case concerning school busing Contents 1 Background 1 1 Educational segregation in the U S 1 2 Detroit 1 3 Procedural history 2 Decision of the Court 2 1 Dissents 3 Impact of the case 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksBackground EditEducational segregation in the U S Edit Brown v Board of Education was a landmark desegregation ruling but difficult to implement The case also did not take into account many sources of segregation in the US including an ongoing migration of Black people into cities white flight to the suburbs and policies and practices that barred non whites from suburban housing By the 1970s many urban school districts had super majorities of black students 4 Educational segregation was therefore widespread with informal racial barriers in the form of numerous thinly disguised practices that opposed Black people living in suburbs Detroit Edit Detroit is one of the most segregated cities in the United States 5 6 During the Great Migration the city gained a large black population which was excluded upon arrival from white neighborhoods This exclusion was enforced by economic discrimination redlining exclusionary clauses in property deeds as well as violence destruction of property including arson and bombings as well as assault 7 Some of the discriminatory policies in Detroit ended as public awareness increased and became more sensitive to the national civil rights movement which began after World War II and as black voting power in city precincts increased The changes allowed Black people to move into additional neighborhoods in the City but some neighborhoods resisted and for the most part little or no change of segregative practices occurred in the suburbs By the mid 70s more than two thirds of students in the Detroit school system were black 4 Procedural history Edit On August 18 1970 the NAACP filed suit against Michigan state officials including Governor William Milliken The original trial began on April 6 1971 and lasted for 41 days The NAACP argued that although schools were not officially segregated white only the city of Detroit and the State as represented by its surrounding counties had enacted policies to increase racial segregation in schools The NAACP also suggested a direct relationship between unfair housing practices such as redlining and educational segregation 8 District Judge Stephen J Roth initially denied the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the implementation of the April 7 plan was unconstitutionally thwarted by State action in the form of the Act of the Legislature of Michigan and remanded the case for an expedited trial on the merits 9 On remand to the District Court Judge Roth held the State of Michigan and the school districts accountable for the segregation 10 and ordered the implementation of a desegregation plan 11 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed some of the decision 12 specifically the official segregation that had been practiced by the City s school district but withheld judgment on the relationship of housing segregation with education The Court specified that it was the state s responsibility to integrate across the segregated metropolitan area 13 The accused officials appealed to the Supreme Court which took up the case on February 27 1974 8 Decision of the Court EditThe Supreme Court overturned the lower courts in a 5 to 4 decision holding that school districts were not obligated to desegregate unless it had been proven that the lines were drawn with racist intent on the part of the districts Thus superficially arbitrary lines drawn by State agencies which produced segregated districts were not illegal 4 14 The Court held that w ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect the district court s remedy was wholly impermissible and not justified by Brown v Board of Education The Court noted that desegregation in the sense of dismantling a dual school system did not require any particular racial balance in each school grade or classroom The Court agreed that the Constitutional rights of Black people had been violated by the City school district the segregative results involving suburban districts did not make suburban districts nor the State of Michigan responsible 13 The Court also emphasized the importance of local control over the operation of schools Dissents Edit Justice Thurgood Marshall s dissenting opinion stated that School district lines however innocently drawn will surely be perceived as fences to separate the races when under a Detroit only decree white parents withdraw their children from the Detroit city schools and move to the suburbs in order to continue them in all white schools 15 Justice Douglas dissenting opinion stated that Today s decision means that there is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause though the schools are segregated by race and though the black schools are not only separate but inferior Michigan by one device or another has over the years created black school districts and white school districts the task of equity is to provide a unitary system for the affected area where as here the State washes its hands of its own creations 16 Impact of the case EditThe Supreme Court s decision required the City of Detroit s school district to redistribute the relatively small number of white students more widely across the district According to Wayne State professor John Mogk the decision also enabled the white flight that re entrenched the city s segregation 8 The Detroit Public Schools became even more disproportionately black over the next two decades with 90 black students in 1987 13 This result reaffirmed the national pattern of city schools attended mostly by Black people with surrounding suburban schools mostly attended by Whites 13 17 See also EditList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 418 Educational inequality in Southeast MichiganReferences Edit Milliken v Bradley 418 U S 717 1974 This article incorporates public domain material from this U S government document Brown v Board of Education 347 U S 483 1954 Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education 402 U S 1 1971 a b c William L Taylor Desegregating Urban School Systems After Milliken v Bradley 21 Wayne L Rev 751 1975 Sugrue Thomas J 26 March 2011 A Dream Still Deferred New York Times Retrieved 27 July 2012 Darden Joe Rahbar Mohammad Jezierski Louise Li Min Velie Ellen 1 January 2010 The Measurement of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Characteristics and Black and White Residential Segregation in Metropolitan Detroit Implications for the Study of Social Disparities in Health Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 1 137 158 doi 10 1080 00045600903379042 S2CID 129692931 In 2000 metropolitan Detroit was the most racially segregated large metropolitan area in the United States Dn Stokes and Thomas 2007 Accompanying such extreme racial residential segregation is extreme class segregation Reynolds Farley Sheldon Danziger Harry J Holzer 2002 The Evolution of Racial Segregation Detroit divided New York Russell Sage Foundation ISBN 9780871542816 a b c Samantha Meinke Milliken v Bradley The Northern Battle for Desegregation 90 Mich Bar J 20 Sept 2011 Bradley v Milliken 433 F 2d 897 6th Cir 1970 Bradley v Milliken 338 F Supp 582 E D Mich 1971 Bradley v Milliken 345 F Supp 914 E D Mich 1972 Bradley v Milliken 484 F 2d 215 6th Cir 1973 a b c d Robert A Sedler The Profound Impact of Milliken v Bradley 33 Wayne L Rev 1693 1987 James David R December 1989 City Limits on Racial Equality The Effects of City Suburb Boundaries on Public School Desegregation 1968 1976 American Sociological Review 54 6 963 985 doi 10 2307 2095718 JSTOR 2095718 Milliken 418 U S at 804 05 Marshall J dissenting Milliken 418 U S at 761 62 Douglas J dissenting Nadworthy Elissa Turner Cory 25 July 2019 This Supreme Court Case Made School District Lines A Tool For Segregation NPR External links Edit Works related to Milliken v Bradley at Wikisource Text of Milliken v Bradley 418 U S 717 1974 is available from Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Milliken v Bradley amp oldid 1116547192, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
