Editing Milliken v. Bradley (section)

==Background==

===Educational segregation in the U.S.===
''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, a practice known as [[redlining]]. By the 1970s, many urban school districts had super-majorities of black students.<ref name=Taylor1975>{{Bluebook journal | first=William L. | last=Taylor | title=Desegregating Urban School Systems After Milliken v. Bradley | volume=21 | journal=Wayne L. Rev. | page=751 | pin= | url= | year=1975}}</ref> [[Racial segregation in the United States#Education|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.<ref name=NYT26Mar11>{{cite news|last=Sugrue|first=Thomas J.|title=A Dream Still Deferred|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opinion/27Sugrue.html|access-date=27 July 2012|newspaper=New York Times|date=26 March 2011}}</ref><ref name=Darden2010>{{cite journal|last=Darden|first=Joe|author2=Rahbar, Mohammad|author3= Jezierski, Louise|author4= Li, Min|author5= Velie, Ellen|title=The Measurement of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Characteristics and Black and White Residential Segregation in Metropolitan Detroit: Implications for the Study of Social Disparities in Health|journal=Annals of the Association of American Geographers|date=1 January 2010|volume=100|issue=1|pages=137–158|doi=10.1080/00045600903379042|s2cid=129692931|quote=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.}}</ref> During the [[Great Migration (African American)|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).<ref name=DetroitDivided>{{cite book|title=Detroit divided|year=2002|publisher=Russell Sage Foundation|location=New York|isbn=9780871542816|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=olcZfAD7cPEC&pg=PP1|author1=Reynolds Farley|author2=Sheldon Danziger|author3=Harry J. Holzer|chapter=The Evolution of Racial Segregation|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/detroitdivided0000farl}}</ref> 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.<ref name=Taylor1975 />

===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.<ref name=Meinke2011>{{Bluebook journal | first=Samantha | last=Meinke | title=Milliken v. Bradley: The Northern Battle for Desegregation | volume=90 | journal=Mich. Bar J. | page=20 | pin= | url=http://www.michbar.org/file/journal/pdf/pdf4article1911.pdf | year=Sept. 2011}}</ref>
District Judge [[Stephen John Roth|Stephen J. Roth]] initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|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.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Bradley v. Milliken |vol=433 |reporter=F.2d |opinion=897 |court=[[6th Cir.]] |date=1970 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/433/897/340109/ |access-date=2019-11-29 }}</ref>

On remand to the District Court, Judge Roth held the State of Michigan and the school districts accountable for the segregation,<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Bradley v. Milliken |vol=338 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=582 |court=[[E.D. Mich.]] |date=1971 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/338/582/2182098/ |access-date=2019-11-29 }}</ref> and ordered the implementation of a desegregation plan.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Bradley v. Milliken |vol=345 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=914 |court=E.D. Mich. |date=1972 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/345/914/1891905/ |access-date=2019-11-29 }}</ref>

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed some of the decision,<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Bradley v. Milliken |vol=484 |reporter=F.2d |opinion=215 |court=6th Cir. |date=1973 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/484/215/195430/ |access-date=2019-11-29 }}</ref> 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.<ref name=Sedler87 />

The accused officials appealed to the Supreme Court, which took up the case on February 27, 1974.<ref name=Meinke2011 />