Milliken v. Bradley
United States Supreme Court
418 U.S. 717 (1974)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the United States Supreme Court held that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause and was unconstitutional. In the wake of Brown, courts were faced with creating remedies for offending school districts. Verda Bradley, on behalf of her children, and others (plaintiffs) sued Michigan governor William Milliken (defendant), alleging that the Detroit public-school system was unconstitutionally segregated. The district court ruled that the Detroit schools were unconstitutionally segregated and that a combination of federal, state, and local policies had established a pattern of residential segregation in the Detroit metropolitan area. The court ordered the Detroit Board of Education and 53 neighboring suburban school districts to submit desegregation plans that addressed the entire three-county Detroit metropolitan area and included busing students from surrounding school districts to achieve desegregation. The school districts appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit agreed that a comprehensive metropolitan-area plan was required to remedy segregation in the Detroit school district and that ordering such a remedy was within the court’s equitable powers. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burger, C.J.)
Concurrence (Stewart, J.)
Dissent (Douglas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.