Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II) Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 45,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II), 433 U.S. 267 (1977)
De jure school segregation refers to segregation in schools because of intentional government discrimination. 7 years after a plaintiff asked the court to remedy a district’s de jure segregation, the Supreme Court taught litigants a lesson in desegregation decrees in Milliken versus Bradley II.
Because of the official actions of the Detroit School Board and the State of Michigan, the Detroit public-school system was racially segregated. Verda Bradley, the mother of two Detroit students, was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against the board and state officials, including then-governor William Milliken. Bradley wanted the court to force the school system to desegregate. The court required the Detroit’s school board and surrounding suburban school districts to issue desegregation plans. The Sixth Circuit partially affirmed.
In Milliken versus Bradley, now known as Milliken I, the Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that the district court exceeded its federal equitable authority. The district court couldn’t order the uninvolved and unaffected suburban schools to participate. The Court remanded for the formulation of desegregation plans that didn’t incorporate the uninvolved schools.
On remand, Bradley’s proposed plan involved bussing students, so the racial makeup of individual schools more closely reflected the racial makeup of the district. The board’s plan also involved bussing, but on a smaller scale. The board included compensatory or remedial educational components, that required additional training for teachers, counseling programs, and new testing procedures.
The district court favored the board’s plan but found that the testing and counseling practices were infected with discriminatory bias, so the practices denied African-American students their equal-protection rights. The judge’s final order included guidelines for educational components. With reading, the judge ordered remedial reading programs to eradicate the effects of the discrimination. Also, the judge instructed the board to train their teachers to help cope with the desegregation process and offer students counseling. On testing, the judge directed the board to ensure testing procedures weren’t biased against African-American children. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The state defendants asked the Supreme Court to address the educational components, arguing the district court’s orders exceeded the scope of the constitutional violation.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.com/cases/millike...
The Quimbee App features over 45,900 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/millike...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our RUclips Channel ► ruclips.net/user/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries