[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-274658-105":59,"doc-detail-274658-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","intervenors-appellees-brief-in-support-of-affirmance-case-22-2649-04142023","Intervenors-Appellees Brief in Support of Affirmance - Case 22-2649 - 04/14/2023","","Brief submitted by intervenors-appellees supporting affirmance in United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Case No. 22-2649. The filing addresses the specialized high schools admissions process and the alleged under-identification of talented Black and Latinx students, along with scrutiny and government changes. It includes corporate disclosure statements, procedural history, standards of review, and arguments focused on whether discovery expansion has a discriminatory effect on Asian Americans and satisfies equal protection requirements.",{"@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/intervenors-appellees-brief-in-support-of-affirmance-case-22-2649-04142023/274658/",{"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/intervenors-appellees-brief-in-support-of-affirmance-case-22-2649-04142023/274658.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Patrick","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What is the document’s purpose in Case 22-2649?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"It is a brief filed by intervenors-appellees to support affirmance in the Second Circuit appeal, addressing issues connected to the specialized high schools admissions process and related discovery questions.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Which court and case number are referenced?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The brief is for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Case 22-2649, with a document date of 04/14/2023.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What does the argument section contend regarding discovery expansion and equal protection?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"It argues that the discovery expansion does not have a discriminatory effect on Asian Americans and therefore does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, including guidance on how discriminatory effects should be measured.","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},274658,1789480873,{"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":145,"preview_page_count":4},549758146520,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/80002397d8c0411e94?_k=1775819394049821470","Case 22-2649, Document 117, 04/14/2023, 3499907, Page1 of 53  \n22-2649  \nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT  \nCHINESE AMERICAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE OF GREATER NEW YORK,  \nPlaintiff-Appellant,  \nCHRISTA MCAULIFFE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL PTO, INC., ASIAN AMERICAN COALITION FOR EDUCATION, PHILLIP YAN HING WONG, YI FANG CHEN, CHI WANG,  \nPlaintiffs,  \nv.  \nERIC ADAMS, in his official capacity as Mayor of New York, RICHARD A CARRANZA, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York  \nCity Department of Education,  \nDefendants-Appellees,  \nTEENS TAKE CHARGE, DESIS RISING UP AND MOVING, HISPANIC FEDERATION, ELIZABETH PIERRET, on behalf of her minor son  \nO.R., ODUNLAMI SHOWA, on behalf of his minor child  \nA. S., TIFFANY BOND, on behalf of her minor child K.B, LAUREN MAHONEY, on behalf of her minor children N.D.F and N.E.F, ROSA VELASQUEZ, on behalf  \nof her minor child C.M., COALITION FOR ASIAN AMERICAN CHILDREN  \nAND FAMILIES,  \nIntervenors-Appellees.  \nOn Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Honorable Edgardo Ramos, District Judge  \nBRIEF OF INTERVENORS-APPELLEES IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE  \nCase 22-2649, Document 117, 04/14/2023, 3499907, Page2 of 53  \nJanai S. Nelson Director-Counsel Samuel Spital Rachel Kleinman Kevin Jason  \nNAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.  \n40 Rector St., 5th Floor New York, NY 10006  \nTel: (212) 965-2200  \nJin Hee Lee  \nMichaele N. Turnage Young Molly M. Cain  \nNAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.  \n700 14th Street NW, Suite 600  \nWashington, DC 20005  \nTel: (202) 682-1300  \nSarah Hinger  \nAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor  \nNew York, NY 10004  \nTel: (212) 519-7882  \nStefanie D. Coyle Arthur Eisenberg Emma Hulse*  \nNEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION  \n125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004  \nTel: (212) 607-3300  \n*Admission Pending  \nFrancisca D. Fajana  \nLATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF  \n475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1901 New York, NY 10115  \nTel: (212) 219-3360  \nElizabeth A. Ritvo BROWN RUDNICK LLPOne Financial Center Boston, MA 02111  \nTel: (617) 856-8249  \nJohn G. Doyle  \nBROWN RUDNICK LLP  \n601 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005  \nTel: (202) 536-1700  \nCaitlin Felise C. Ramiro Samuel J. Hickey BROWN RUDNICK LLP  \n7 Times Square  \nNew York, NY 10036  \nTel: (212) 209-4800  \nCase 22-2649, Document 117, 04/14/2023, 3499907, Page3 of 53  \nCORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT  \nPursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1, the undersigned counsel for Intervenors-Appellees make the following disclosures:  \nTeens Take Charge is a non-profit organization, fiscally sponsored by FJC, a 501(c)(3) public charity. It does not issue stock, and thus, no publicly held corporation can own 10 or more percent of its stock.  \nDesis Rising Up and Moving is a membership-led not-for-profit organization with no parent, subsidiary, or corporate affiliate. It does not issue stock, and thus, no publicly held corporation can own 10 or more percent of its stock.  \nHispanic Federation is a not-for-profit member organization, incorporated under the laws of the state of New York, with no parent, subsidiary, or corporate affiliate. It does not issue stock, and thus, no publicly held corporation can own 10 or more percent of its stock.  \nCoalition for Asian American Children and Families is a not-for-profit organization with no parent, subsidiary, or corporate affiliate. It does not issue stock, and thus, no publicly held corporation can own 10 or more percent of its stock.  \nCase 22-2649, Document 117, 04/14/2023, 3499907, Page4 of 53  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nPage  \nCORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..........................................................i  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................... ii  \nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................iv  \nSTATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............","cbCaijBfm6s5SwJF","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijBfm6s5SwJF","pdf",647986,53,"English","# Corporate Disclosure Statement\n# Table of Contents\n## Table of Authorities\n## Statement of Jurisdiction\n## Statement of the Issues\n## Statement of the Case\n## I. The Specialized High Schools Admissions Process Has Long Under-Identified Talented Black and Latinx Students\n## II. The Specialized High Schools’ Admissions Process Prompts Public Scrutiny and Government Change\n## III. Procedural History\n## Summary of the Argument\n## Standard of Review\n## Argument\n## I. The Discovery Expansion Does Not Have a Discriminatory Effect on Asian Americans and Does Not Violate the Equal Protection Clause\n### A. Showing adverse racially discriminatory effect\n### B. Correct measurement method\n### C. No discriminatory effect shown\n### D. Isolated examples at two schools insufficient\n### E. Rejection of argument about treatment of Asian American","[{\"question\":\"What is the document’s purpose in Case 22-2649?\",\"answer\":\"It is a brief filed by intervenors-appellees to support affirmance in the Second Circuit appeal, addressing issues connected to the specialized high schools admissions process and related discovery questions.\"},{\"question\":\"Which court and case number are referenced?\",\"answer\":\"The brief is for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Case 22-2649, with a document date of 04/14/2023.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the argument section contend regarding discovery expansion and equal protection?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that the discovery expansion does not have a discriminatory effect on Asian Americans and therefore does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, including guidance on how discriminatory effects should be measured.\"}]","Intervenors-Appellees Brief in Support of Affirmance - Case 22-2649 - 04/14/2023 | PDF",134]