DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - Document 31

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Blitz

Defendants submit a memorandum opposing a request for a preliminary injunction. The filing argues that plaintiff cannot meet the heightened and extraordinary requirements for such relief, particularly failing to show irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, or that the requested remedy matches the alleged constitutional violation. It further contends that revisions to a Discovery Program are facially neutral, lack discriminatory intent, and satisfy rational basis review, while also addressing Title VI standards tied to intentional discrimination.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages39

Reading Time1 h 38 min

AccessFree to download

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

ARGUMENT

POINT I

CONCLUSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEWYORK YI FENG CHEN,individually and on behalf of her minorchildren M.P.,Ma.P.,and P.P., Plaintiff, -against- ZOHRAN MAMDANI,in his official capacity as Mayorof New York;KAMAR H.SAMUELS,in his officialcapacity as Chancellor of the New York City Departmentof Education;and the NEW YORK CITYDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants. # DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUM OF LAW INOPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STEVEN BANKS Corporation Counsel of the City of New YorkAttorneyfor Defendants100 Church StreetNew York,N.Y.10007 Of Counsel:Tonya JeneretteAbigail StrangeTel:(212)356-1983Matter No.:2026-035217 Case 1:26-CV-03355-ER Document 31 Filed 06/17/26 Page 2 of 39 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………III PRELIMINARY STATEMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 ARGUMENT POINT I PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY AND DRASTIC REMEDY OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 A. The heightened standard for a mandatory injunction applies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 B. Plaintiff fails to satisfy any element required for a preliminary injunction………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 1. Plaintiff cannot establish that she or M.P.will be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 2. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because the revised criteria for the Discovery Program do not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title VI…………………………………………………………………………14 (a) The Revisions to the Discovery Program Eligibility Criteria are Facially Neutral and Lack a Discriminatory Intent and are thus Subject to Rational Basis Review…………………………………………………………………16 i. Facially neutral changes to the Discovery Program were not adopted with discriminatory intent or purpose……………………………………………19 (b) The Discovery Program Reforms Satisfy Rational Basis Review Because They Are Rationally Related to the Legitimate Government Interest of Fostering Diversity in Secondary Schools and Expanding Opportunity to Disadvantaged Students……………………………………………………25 (c) Plaintiff Cannot Demonstrate a Likelihood of Success on the Merits under Title VI because Plaintiff Cannot Establish that Defendants Intentionally Discriminated on the Basis of Race……………………………………………………………………………………………………………26 3. The balance of equities and the public's interest weigh against granting the preliminary injunction. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………27 C. The remedy sought is not suited to the scope and nature of the alleged constitutional violation and should not be granted…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………29 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………30 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Pages Cases Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S.275(2001), aff'd,No.21-1642,2022 WL710896 (2d Cir. Mar. 10,2022)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………26 Bibliotechnical Athenaeum v. Am. Univ.of Beirut, 527 F. Supp.3d 625(S.D.N.Y.2021)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………26 Bos. Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp.v.Sch. Comm. of City of Bos., No. CV 21-10330-WGY,2021 WL4489840 (D. Mass. Oct.1,2021), aff'd sub nom.,89 F.4th 46(1st Cir.2023)…………………………………………………………………………………21,23,25 Brewer v.W.Irondequoit Cent. Sch. Dist., 212 F.3d 738(2d Cir.2000)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 Care One,LLC v.Nat'l Lab. Rels. Bd., 166F.4th 335(2d Cir.2026)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9,10,29 Caviezel v.Great Neck Pub. Schs., 701 F. Supp.2d 414(E.D.N.Y.2010), aff'd,500 F.App’x 16(2d Cir.2012)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 Chabad Lu

FAQs

Why do defendants oppose granting a preliminary injunction?

Defendants argue plaintiff cannot satisfy the heightened standard for such an extraordinary remedy and fails to meet required elements, including irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and proper tailoring of the requested relief.

What standard do defendants say applies to a mandatory preliminary injunction?

The memorandum states that a heightened standard for a mandatory injunction applies, and plaintiff does not satisfy the elements required for preliminary injunctive relief.

How do defendants characterize the Discovery Program revisions under Equal Protection and Title VI?

Defendants argue the eligibility criteria changes are facially neutral, adopted without discriminatory intent, and thus subject to rational basis review; they also contend Title VI requires proof of intentional discrimination that plaintiff cannot establish.

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Blitz