Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Document 15 - Preliminary Injunction Motion

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Jake

Legal memorandum filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York supporting a plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The filing outlines the specialized high schools admissions process, prior discovery and policy changes, and alleges discriminatory purpose affecting M.P.’s admission to Stuyvesant. It applies the preliminary injunction standard, analyzes likelihood of success on equal protection and Title VI claims, and argues irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest favor injunctive relief.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages33

Reading Time1 h 23 min

AccessFree to download

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Specialized High Schools and the SHSAT

The Discovery Program Before 2018

The 2018 Admission Policy Changes

Evidence of Discriminatory Purpose

M.P.’s Denial of Admission to Stuyvesant

Prior Litigation

DISCUSSION

Preliminary Injunction Standard

Chen Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Her Equal Protection Claim

Chen Is Likely to Succeed on Her Title VI Claim

The Other Preliminary Injunction Factors Are Satisfied

CONCLUSION

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD-COUNT LIMIT

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 15 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 33 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 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants. Case No. 1:26-cv-03355 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 15 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 33 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 2 I. The Specialized High Schools and the SHSAT................................................................. 2 II. The Discovery Program Before 2018 ................................................................................ 4 III. The 2018 Admission Policy Changes ................................................................................ 5 IV. Evidence of Discriminatory Purpose ................................................................................. 6 A. Contemporaneous Public Statements .......................................................................... 6 B. Internal DOE Documents ............................................................................................ 8 C. Targeting of Asian-American Middle Schools .......................................................... 10 V. M.P.’s Denial of Admission to Stuyvesant...................................................................... 10 VI. Prior Litigation................................................................................................................. 12 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 13 I. Preliminary Injunction Standard ...................................................................................... 13 II. Chen Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Her Equal Protection Claim ....................... 13 A. The Discovery Program Changes Were Adopted with a Racial Purpose .................. 14 1. Defendants’ Contemporaneous Statements Establish a Racially Discriminatory Purpose ................................................................................................................. 14 2. Internal DOE Documents Confirm the Racial Purpose ....................................... 15 3. The ENI Threshold Was Deliberately Designed to Target Asian-American Middle Schools .................................................................................................... 17 B. The Discovery Changes Have Caused Concrete Harm to M.P................................. 18 C. The Policy Cannot Survive Strict Scrutiny................................................................ 19 1. Defendants Have No Compelling Interest ........................................................... 19 2. The Policy Is Not Narrowly Tailored .................................................................. 19 3. The Policy Violates The “Twin Commands” of Equal Protection ...................... 21 D. The Pre-SFFA Denial of a Preliminary Injunction in Christa McAuliffe Does Not Affect Chen’s Likelihood of Success ........................................................................ 21 III. Chen Is Likely to Succeed on Her Title VI Claim........................................................... 23 IV. The Other Preliminary Injunction Factors Are

FAQs

What motion does this memorandum support?

It supports the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

What are the key claims addressed in the memorandum?

The memorandum argues likely success on an equal protection claim and on a Title VI claim.

What factors are analyzed to justify preliminary injunctive relief?

It analyzes the preliminary injunction standard, including likelihood of success, concrete harm and irreparable harm, and whether the balance of equities and public interest favor injunctive relief.

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Jake