[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-274453-105":59,"doc-detail-274453-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","defendants-intervenors-brief-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion-for-preliminary-injunction-case-126-cv-03355-er-document-51-filed-063026","Defendants-Intervenors’ Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 51 Filed 06/30/26","","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.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/defendants-intervenors-brief-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion-for-preliminary-injunction-case-126-cv-03355-er-document-51-filed-063026/274453/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/defendants-intervenors-brief-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion-for-preliminary-injunction-case-126-cv-03355-er-document-51-filed-063026/274453.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Marry","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-23","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",17,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What is the brief’s main purpose?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The brief opposes plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Why does the brief argue plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"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.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What do the brief’s irreparable harm and equities sections claim?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"It argues plaintiff M.P. does not face irreparable harm and that the balance of equities favors maintaining the status quo.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},274453,1789477420,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":26,"preview_page_count":4},5909892079670,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 51 Filed 06/30/26 Page 1 of 24  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK  \nYI FANG CHEN, individually and on behalf of her minor children M.P., Ma.P., and P.P.,  \nPlaintiff,  \nv .  \nZOHRAN 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  \nthe NEW YORK CITY OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,  \nDefendants,  \nand  \nTEENS TAKE CHARGE, et al.,  \nDefendant-Intervenors.  \nCase No. 1:26-cv-03355  \nDEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION  \nCase 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 51 Filed 06/30/26 Page 2 of 24  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... ii  \nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT...................................................................................................... 5  \nBACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 7  \nSTANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 11  \nARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 12  \nI. Plaintiffs Are Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits ofTheir Claims ....................... 12  \nA. The Policy at Issue Is a Race-Neutral, Evenly Applied Rule That Complies With the Equal Protection Clause ............................................. 12  \ni. Plaintiffs Cannot Prove Discriminatory Effect ............................. 19  \nB. Plaintiffs Are Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits ofTheir Title VI  \nClaim ......................................................................................................... 20  \nII. Plaintiff M.P. Does Not Face Irreparable Harm .................................................... 20  \nIII. The Balance of Equities Weighs in Favor of Maintaining the Status Quo ........... 21  \nCONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 21  \nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.  \nCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE............................................................................................. 23  \nCase 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 51 Filed 06/30/26 Page 3 of 24  \nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES  \nPage(s)  \nCases  \nAlexander v. S.C. State Conf. of the NAACP, 602 U.S. 1, 37 (2024) ............................................................................................................... 11  \nBos. 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  \nBos. Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp. v. Sch. Comm. for City of Bos., 89 F.4th 46, 62 (1st Cir. 2023) ................................................................................................ 12  \nChinese Am. Citizens All. of Greater N.Y. v. Adams, 116 F.4th 161 (2d Cir. 2024) ........................................................................................9, 13, 15  \nChrista McAuliffe Intermediate School PTO, Inc. v. de Blasio, No. 18-cv-11657-ER (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2018) ................................................................... 1, 6  \nChrista McAuliffe Intermediate Sch. PTO, Inc. v. de Blasio, 364 F. Supp. 3d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ......................................................................... 1, 5–7, 13  \nClapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) ..................................................................................................................2  \nCurtis v. Citibank,  \n226 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000) ....................................","cbCaicIHraWgj8PB","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaicIHraWgj8PB","pdf",306168,24,"English","# Table of Contents\n## Preliminary Statement\n## Background\n## Standard of Review\n## Argument\n### I. Plaintiffs Are Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claims\n### II. Plaintiff M.P. Does Not Face Irreparable Harm\n### III. The Balance of Equities Weighs in Favor of Maintaining the Status Quo\n## Conclusion\n## Certificate of Service\n## Certificate of Compliance","[{\"question\":\"What is the brief’s main purpose?\",\"answer\":\"The brief opposes plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the brief argue plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits?\",\"answer\":\"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.\"},{\"question\":\"What do the brief’s irreparable harm and equities sections claim?\",\"answer\":\"It argues plaintiff M.P. does not face irreparable harm and that the balance of equities favors maintaining the status quo.\"}]","Defendants-Intervenors’ Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 51 Filed 06/30/26 | PDF"]