Key Players
Governor William B. Milliken
Michigan Governor William B. Milliken was the first of several government administrators and agencies named as defendants in the case for their role in upholding segregated schools. The popularly known abbreviation for the case takes its name from Governor Milliken as the first party named among defendants.
Also named were Attorney General Frank J. Kelly, Assistant Attorney General Eugene Krasicky, Solicitor General Robert A. Derengoski, and Detroit Public Schools Superintendent John W. Porter.
Detroit News Photograph Collection, Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University
Ronald and Richard Bradley
Black parents of Detroit school children with the NAACP brought the case on behalf of Black students of Detroit's public schools, including Ronald (pictured here) and Richard Bradley. The popularly known abbreviation for the case takes its name from the Bradleys as the first parties listed among the plaintiffs. The NAACP was also a plaintiff.
Detroit News Photograph Collection, Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University
Judge Stephen J. Roth
Roth was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan from 1962 to 1974. The first judge to preside over Bradley v. Milliken, he drew criticism for issuing the controversial metropolitan remedy that ultimately put the case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Robert DeMascio took over the case after Roth's death in 1974.
Detroit News Photograph Collection, Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University
Judge Robert DeMascio
DeMascio was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan from 1971 to 1988. Taking over for Roth following his death in 1974, DeMascio was responsible for enforcing desegregation in Detroit schools and overseeing the implementation of court-ordered improvements.
DeMascio recused himself in 1980 after an attorney involved in the Milliken case accused him of no longer being impartial, at which point the case was assigned to a panel of three judges.
Detroit News Photograph Collection, Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University
United States Supreme Court
In the U.S. Supreme Court's hearing of Milliken v. Bradley, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices Potter Stewart, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell Jr., and William Rehnquist represented the majority opinion. Remaining Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan Jr., Byron White, and Thurgood Marshall dissented.
Notably, Marshall (pictured front row, far right) was the first African American justice appointed to the Supreme Court. Prior to his service on the Supreme Court, Marshall successfully argued to end the doctrine of "separate but equal" before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education.
1970
Bradley v. Milliken, 433 F. 2d 897 (6th Cir. 1970)
In April of 1970, the Detroit School Board adopted a plan to integrate Detroit schools over a three year period by redrawing school boundaries and busing 10,000 students across eleven highly segregated schools. The plan was met with backlash and scrapped by the state legislature. Governor William Milliken signed Act 48 in July 1970, which mandated residential school districting but included an "open enrollment" loophole that allowed white students living in increasingly Black neighborhoods to transfer out of largely Black schools. Met with backlash by different stakeholders, the NAACP began strategizing a legal challenge to the constitutionality of Act 48.
In August, a group of Black parents with the NAACP brought their case as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Governor Milliken and other Michigan state officials on behalf of Detroit Public Schools students (including Ronald and Richard Bradley). The plaintiffs accused the City of Detroit, state officials, and adjacent suburbs of intentionally enacting policies to maintain racial segregation in schools. They argued that the segregation resulting from the policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs sought an injunction from the district court to implement the plan adopted by the Detroit School Board and to prohibit the enforcement of Act 48. The court denied the injunction but did not address the constitutionality of Act 48. On the very same day, the defendants filed an appeal.
The case was eventually heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The court denied the defendants' appeal and moved the case forward to be heard on the merits. In pertinent part, the court found Act 48 as unconstitutional but issued no opinion as to the merits of the plan adopted by the Detroit School Board.
1971
Bradley v. Milliken, 338 F. Supp. 582 (E.D. Mich. 1971)
Initial proceedings focused on whether segregation in Detroit public schools were intentional and could be attributed to state actions. Judge Stephen J. Roth found that segregation in Detroit schools could be attributed not only to housing patterns, but also to policies and practices by state and local officials. The court held that the state and school board intentionally contributed to racial segregation through these policies in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Detroit Board of Education was ordered to develop a desegregation plan.
1972
Bradley v. Milliken, 345 F. Supp. 914 (E.D. Mich. 1972)
This subsequent ruling explored the scope and feasibility of a desegregation remedy. Judge Roth had called for the submission of a "Detroit-only" and "metropolitan" plan for desegregation to be submitted by the Detroit Board of Education and the plaintiffs. After submission, Judge Roth determined that segregation in Detroit's schools could not be sufficiently remedied within Detroit alone since suburbs surrounding the city were also implicated in creating segregated schools. Therefore, he ordered for a "metropolitan" remedy involving 53 surrounding suburban school districts in the plan to desegregate Detroit schools. The final order incorporated 90 points from three different plans submitted by the parties, from which a final plan was to be constructed and implemented.
1973
Bradley v. Milliken, 484 F.2d 215 (6th Cir. 1973)
The previous order for a metropolitan-wide desegregation plan requiring participation from surrounding suburban school districts in addition to Detroit schools led to an appeal. It focused on the responsibility of the state and suburban districts for segregation in Detroit schools, and explored whether a metropolitan remedy was necessary to address the established violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The appellate court upheld previous findings that policies and actions by the Detroit Board of Education and state and local officials resulted in de facto segregation in Detroit schools. It also affirmed Judge Roth's ruling that a "Detroit-only" desegregation plan could not sufficiently remedy segregation in Detroit schools, in part because Black students already made up more than 90% of most of the schools. Additionally, the appeals court emphasized that segregation practices in surrounding suburbs systemically compromised the educational opportunities of Detroit students, requiring a systemic remedy.
The ruling affirmed the previous ruling, allowing the district court's order for a metropolitan-wide desegregation plan to stand, mandating cooperation between the Detroit Board of Education and suburban public school districts.
1974
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)
State officials and suburban districts challenged the metropolitan desegregation plan and appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The case explored whether suburban school districts, as indirect parties to the original lawsuit who had not been found directly responsible for segregation in Detroit schools, could be mandated to participate in the desegregation plan.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court deemed the lower court decision unconstitutional and overturned the ruling. The court held that federal courts could not impose a cross-district remedy unless there was clear evidence that each district had intentionally contributed to segregation in Detroit schools.
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the majority opinion, arguing that the remedy was an overreach and emphasized the principle of local control in education. The dissenting justices emphasized that the systemic nature of segregation demanded a systemic remedy. The ruling blocked the metropolitan desegregation plan and de facto segregation persisted without clear remedy.
1976
Bradley v. Milliken, 540 F.2d 229 (6th Cir. 1976)
The court reviewed appeals from prior orders of the District Court. In part, the Appellate Court found there to be no contradiction between their ruling and a prior ruling of the Supreme Court, affirming that segregation found in Detroit’s schools needed to be eliminated. Further, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the District Court, ensuring that comprehensive educational programs for reading and communication, in-service training, testing, and counseling and career guidance were all necessary remedies.
1977
Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977)
With the metropolitan desegregation plan blocked by the Supreme Court, this subsequent and final ruling nicknamed "Milliken II" focused on the authority of federal courts to order states to fund compensatory educational programs to address the persisting adverse effects of segregation on Detroit students.
The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling asserting that federal courts may require states - as active agents in past and persisting segregation - to fund programs designed to address the long-term effects of segregation. The Supreme Court ruling required the state of Michigan to fund compensatory educational programs in Detroit such as teacher training, reading and counseling services, and other educational resources designed to improve educational opportunities for students affected by segregation.