Defendants-Intervenors’ Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 51 Filed 06/30/26

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Marry

Defendants-Intervenors’ brief contests plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in the Southern District of New York, framed under a case numbered 1:26-cv-03355-ER. The filing argues plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits, asserting the challenged policy is race-neutral and evenly applied and that discriminatory effects and Title VI claims are not substantiated. It further contends plaintiffs do not face irreparable harm and that the balance of equities supports maintaining the status quo pending resolution.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages24

Reading Time1 h 0 min

AccessFree to download

Table of Contents

Preliminary Statement

Background

Standard of Review

Argument

I. Plaintiffs Are Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claims

II. Plaintiff M.P. Does Not Face Irreparable Harm

III. The Balance of Equities Weighs in Favor of Maintaining the Status Quo

Conclusion

Certificate of Service

Certificate of Compliance

Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 51 Filed 06/30/26 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK YI FANG CHEN, individually and on behalf of her minor children M.P., Ma.P., and P.P., Plaintiff, v . ZOHRAN MAMDANI, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York ; KAMAR H. SAMUELS, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education ; and the NEW YORK CITY OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants, and TEENS TAKE CHARGE, et al., Defendant-Intervenors. Case No. 1:26-cv-03355 DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 51 Filed 06/30/26 Page 2 of 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT...................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 7 STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 11 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 12 I. Plaintiffs Are Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits ofTheir Claims ....................... 12 A. The Policy at Issue Is a Race-Neutral, Evenly Applied Rule That Complies With the Equal Protection Clause ............................................. 12 i. Plaintiffs Cannot Prove Discriminatory Effect ............................. 19 B. Plaintiffs Are Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits ofTheir Title VI Claim ......................................................................................................... 20 II. Plaintiff M.P. Does Not Face Irreparable Harm .................................................... 20 III. The Balance of Equities Weighs in Favor of Maintaining the Status Quo ........... 21 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE............................................................................................. 23 Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 51 Filed 06/30/26 Page 3 of 24 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Alexander v. S.C. State Conf. of the NAACP, 602 U.S. 1, 37 (2024) ............................................................................................................... 11 Bos. Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp. v. Sch. Comm. of City of Bos., No. 21-cv-10330-WGY, 2021 WL 4489840 (D. Mass. Oct. 1, 2021) ...................................13 Bos. Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp. v. Sch. Comm. for City of Bos., 89 F.4th 46, 62 (1st Cir. 2023) ................................................................................................ 12 Chinese Am. Citizens All. of Greater N.Y. v. Adams, 116 F.4th 161 (2d Cir. 2024) ........................................................................................9, 13, 15 Christa McAuliffe Intermediate School PTO, Inc. v. de Blasio, No. 18-cv-11657-ER (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2018) ................................................................... 1, 6 Christa McAuliffe Intermediate Sch. PTO, Inc. v. de Blasio, 364 F. Supp. 3d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ......................................................................... 1, 5–7, 13 Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) ..................................................................................................................2 Curtis v. Citibank, 226 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000) ....................................

FAQs

What is the brief’s main purpose?

The brief opposes plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Why does the brief argue plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits?

It asserts the policy is race-neutral, evenly applied, and compliant with the Equal Protection Clause, and it argues plaintiffs cannot prove discriminatory effect or likely succeed on the Title VI claim.

What do the brief’s irreparable harm and equities sections claim?

It argues plaintiff M.P. does not face irreparable harm and that the balance of equities favors maintaining the status quo.

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Marry