Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al.
433 U.S. 267 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a school desegregation case, a federal court's equitable remedial power is not limited to pupil reassignment but can include ordering the implementation of remedial educational programs to counteract the educational effects of past de jure segregation. An order requiring state officials, who were constitutional violators, to prospectively share the costs of such programs does not violate the Eleventh Amendment.
Facts:
- The Detroit School Board engaged in various practices, including the use of optional attendance zones and racially based transportation, that intentionally created and maintained racial segregation in its schools.
- The Board also improperly created and altered attendance zones, grade structures, and feeder school patterns to perpetuate segregation.
- The State of Michigan and its agencies were also found to have acted directly to control and maintain the pattern of segregation in Detroit schools.
- When the Detroit School Board attempted to implement a voluntary desegregation plan, the Michigan Legislature enacted a law to prevent it from being carried out.
- The long-standing, state-enforced segregation resulted in significant educational and cultural harms to students, including deficiencies in reading and communication skills.
- In response to a court order, the Detroit School Board itself proposed including several remedial educational components in its desegregation plan to address these harms.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Bradley et al.) sued Detroit and Michigan state officials (Milliken et al.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging de jure segregation.
- The District Court found both the city and state liable for constitutional violations and ordered a multi-district, metropolitan desegregation plan.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the interdistrict remedy.
- In Milliken I, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the interdistrict remedy was impermissibly broad, and remanded the case for the creation of a Detroit-only desegregation plan.
- On remand, the District Court ordered a new plan limited to Detroit that included both pupil reassignment and several remedial educational components, with the costs to be split between the Detroit School Board and the State of Michigan.
- The State of Michigan appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's order regarding the educational components and cost-sharing.
- The State of Michigan (petitioners) successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court's remedial power in a school desegregation case extend to ordering state officials, who were found to have committed constitutional violations, to fund educational programs designed to remedy the effects of past de jure segregation without violating the Eleventh Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. A federal court's remedial power extends to ordering the funding of such programs, and this does not violate the Eleventh Amendment. The scope of the remedy is determined by the nature of the constitutional violation. Here, the violation was a pervasive de jure segregated school system which created a 'condition that offends the Constitution,' including educational deficits in students. The court-ordered educational components, such as remedial reading and teacher training, are tailored to cure this condition and restore the victims to the position they would have occupied absent the segregation. Pupil assignment alone cannot remedy the lingering consequences of unlawful educational isolation. Furthermore, the order requiring the state to pay for half the costs does not violate the Eleventh Amendment because it constitutes prospective injunctive relief, not retroactive monetary damages. Citing Edelman v. Jordan, the Court found the order fits within the exception that permits federal courts to require state officials to conform their future conduct to federal law, even if it has a direct impact on the state treasury.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
Yes. Justice Marshall joined the majority opinion wholeheartedly, adding that the case, while tragic, is not unique. He noted that it is expected that intentional discrimination by a northern school board would impair the academic development of Black children, thus making a program of remediation necessary to supplement pupil reassignment. He emphasized that the legal question regarding the scope of the remedy would be the same even if the Detroit School Board had opposed the remedial plan instead of proposing it.
Concurring - Justice Powell
Yes. Justice Powell concurred only in the judgment, viewing the case as unique and having limited precedential effect. He characterized the litigation as a 'friendly suit' in which the plaintiffs and the Detroit School Board joined forces to extract funds from the state treasury, with the state's primary objection being financial. He argued that the District Court's findings of fact justifying the remedies were too generalized. However, given the 'political paralysis' and 'administrative chaos' of the Detroit school system, he concluded that the District Court's assumption of broad power was understandable and affirmed the judgment to avoid prolonging the disruption of education in Detroit, while reaffirming the principle that a remedy must be tailored to the specific violation.
Analysis:
This decision, known as Milliken II, significantly expanded the remedial authority of federal courts in desegregation cases. It established that desegregation remedies can go beyond student reassignment to address the tangible educational harms caused by segregation through substantive programs. This ruling empowers courts to mandate and require funding for programs like remedial reading, teacher training, and counseling to cure the 'conditions that offend the Constitution.' The case also clarified the application of the Eleventh Amendment, reinforcing the distinction established in Edelman v. Jordan between prohibited retroactive damages and permissible prospective relief that compels state compliance with federal law, even when it requires the expenditure of state funds.
Unlock the full brief for Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al.