Milliken v. Bradley’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
763 federal appellate · 187 district · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,245 later decisions (113 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York (1978), Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984)
763 federal appellate · 187 district · 75 state decisions — followed in 18 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedBradley v. Milliken (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
Cited together with Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Edelman v. Jordan · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Milliken v. Bradley · Green v. County School Board of New Kent County
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2,245 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the nature of the desegregation remedy is to be determined by the nature and scope of the constitutional violation.”
111 later decisions quote this exact passage“[tjhese programs were not, and as a practical matter could not be, intended to wipe the slate clean by one bold stroke, as could a retroactive award of money in Edelman . Rather, by the nature of the antecedent violation, which on this record caused significant deficiencies in communications skills — reading and speaking — the victims of Detroit’s de jure segregated system will continue to experience the effects of segregation until such future time as the remedial programs can help dissipate the continuing effects of past misconduct. Reading and speech deficiencies cannot be eliminated by judicial fiat; they will require time, patience, and the skills of specially trained teachers. That the programs are also ‘compensatory’ in nature does not change the fact that they are part of a plan that operates prospectively to bring about the delayed benefits of a unitary school system. We therefore hold that such prospective relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“permits federal courts to enjoin state officials to conform their conduct to requirements of federal law, notwithstanding a direct and substantial impact on the state treasury.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Florida Association Of Rehabilitation Facilities, Inc. v. State Of Florida Department Of Health And Rehabilitative Services · Ona Mae Reed Sallie Long Ruth Wilcher Opal Mae Cook Stella King, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Health and Human Services, and William L. Lukhard, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Ona Mae Reed Sallie Long Ruth Wilcher Opal Mae Cook Stella King, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Health and Human Services, and William L. Lukhard, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Ona Mae Reed Sallie Long Ruth Wilcher Opal Mae Cook Stella King, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Department of Health and Human Services, William L. Lukhard, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Welfare
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.