[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-274656-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-274656-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","defendants-memorandum-of-law-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion-for-a-preliminary-injunction-document-31","DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - Document 31","","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.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/defendants-memorandum-of-law-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion-for-a-preliminary-injunction-document-31/274656/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/defendants-memorandum-of-law-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion-for-a-preliminary-injunction-document-31/274656.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Blitz","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-23","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",19,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Why do defendants oppose granting a preliminary injunction?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"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.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What standard do defendants say applies to a mandatory preliminary injunction?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The memorandum states that a heightened standard for a mandatory injunction applies, and plaintiff does not satisfy the elements required for preliminary injunctive relief.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How do defendants characterize the Discovery Program revisions under Equal Protection and Title VI?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"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.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},274656,1789480669,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},24464137899374,"https://us-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEWYORK  \nYI FENG CHEN,individually and on behalf of her minorchildren M.P.,Ma.P.,and P.P.,  \nPlaintiff,  \n-against-  \nZOHRAN 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,  \nDefendants.  \n# DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUM OF LAW INOPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APRELIMINARY INJUNCTION\n\nSTEVEN BANKS  \nCorporation Counsel of the City of New YorkAttorneyfor Defendants100 Church StreetNew York,N.Y.10007  \nOf Counsel:Tonya JeneretteAbigail StrangeTel:(212)356-1983Matter No.:2026-035217  \nCase 1:26-CV-03355-ER Document 31 Filed 06/17/26 Page 2 of 39  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nPage  \nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………III  \nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1  \nSTATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2  \nARGUMENT  \nPOINT I  \nPLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THE  \nREQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY AND  \nDRASTIC REMEDY OF A PRELIMINARY  \nINJUNCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6  \nA. The heightened standard for a mandatory injunction  \napplies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6  \nB. Plaintiff fails to satisfy any element required for a  \npreliminary injunction………………………………………………………………………………………………………8  \n1. Plaintiff cannot establish that she or M.P.will be  \nirreparably harmed absent a preliminary  \ninjunction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9  \n2. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a likelihood of  \nsuccess on the merits because the revised criteria  \nfor the Discovery Program do not violate the  \nEqual Protection Clause or Title VI…………………………………………………………………………14  \n(a) The Revisions to the Discovery Program  \nEligibility Criteria are Facially Neutral and  \nLack a Discriminatory Intent and are thus  \nSubject to Rational Basis Review…………………………………………………………………16  \ni. Facially neutral changes to the  \nDiscovery Program were not adopted  \nwith discriminatory intent or purpose……………………………………………19  \n(b) The Discovery Program Reforms Satisfy  \nRational Basis Review Because They Are  \nRationally Related to the Legitimate  \nGovernment Interest of Fostering Diversity  \nin Secondary Schools and Expanding  \nOpportunity to Disadvantaged Students……………………………………………………25  \n(c) Plaintiff Cannot Demonstrate a Likelihood  \nof Success on the Merits under Title VI  \nbecause Plaintiff Cannot Establish that  \nDefendants Intentionally Discriminated on  \nthe Basis of Race……………………………………………………………………………………………………………26  \n3. The balance of equities and the public's interest  \nweigh against granting the preliminary injunction.  \n………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………27  \nC. The remedy sought is not suited to the scope and nature  \nof the alleged constitutional violation and should not  \nbe granted…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………29  \nCONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………30  \nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES  \nPages  \nCases  \nAlexander v. Sandoval,  \n532 U.S.275(2001),  \naff'd,No.21-1642,2022 WL710896  \n(2d Cir. Mar. 10,2022)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………26  \nBibliotechnical Athenaeum v. Am. Univ.of Beirut,  \n527 F. Supp.3d 625(S.D.N.Y.2021)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………26  \nBos. Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp.v.Sch. Comm. of City of Bos.,  \nNo. CV 21-10330-WGY,2021 WL4489840  \n(D. Mass. Oct.1,2021),  \naff'd sub nom.,89 F.4th 46(1st Cir.2023)…………………………………………………………………………………21,23,25  \nBrewer v.W.Irondequoit Cent. Sch. Dist.,  \n212 F.3d 738(2d Cir.2000)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10  \nCare One,LLC v.Nat'l Lab. Rels. Bd.,  \n166F.4th 335(2d Cir.2026)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9,10,29  \nCaviezel v.Great Neck Pub. Schs.,  \n701 F. Supp.2d 414(E.D.N.Y.2010),  \naff'd,500 F.App’x 16(2d Cir.2012)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………7  \nChabad Lu","cbCaiiNdd7JW6rB0","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiiNdd7JW6rB0","pdf",1501510,39,"English","# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n## Cases\n# PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n# STATEMENT OF FACTS\n# ARGUMENT\n## POINT I\n## A.\n## B.\n## C.\n# CONCLUSION","[{\"question\":\"Why do defendants oppose granting a preliminary injunction?\",\"answer\":\"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.\"},{\"question\":\"What standard do defendants say applies to a mandatory preliminary injunction?\",\"answer\":\"The memorandum states that a heightened standard for a mandatory injunction applies, and plaintiff does not satisfy the elements required for preliminary injunctive relief.\"},{\"question\":\"How do defendants characterize the Discovery Program revisions under Equal Protection and Title VI?\",\"answer\":\"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.\"}]","DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - Document 31 | PDF",98]