Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Part 47

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Ben

Reply memorandum of law submitted in the Southern District of New York in support of a plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The document argues that the defendants’ reliance on a mandatory/prohibitory distinction is misplaced, that ongoing racial discrimination constitutes irreparable harm, and that the plaintiff is likely to succeed under applicable standards. It further addresses strict scrutiny, discriminatory intent in admissions, related Title VI claims, and explains why the requested narrow relief and public interest align with governing precedent.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages19

Reading Time48 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Argument

Defendants’ Reliance on the Mandatory/Prohibitory Distinction Is a Red Herring

Ongoing Racial Discrimination Is Irreparable Harm

Chen Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits

The Equities and Public Interest Favor the Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff Seeks a Narrow, Constitutionally Appropriate Remedy

The Requested Relief Does Not Conflict with Hecht-Calandra

Conclusion

Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 47 Filed 06/29/26 Page 1 of 19 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-ER REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 47 Filed 06/29/26 Page 2 of 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3 I. Defendants’ Reliance on the Mandatory/Prohibitory Distinction Is a Red Herring.......... 3 II. Ongoing Racial Discrimination Is Irreparable Harm......................................................... 4 III. Chen Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits ........................................................................... 6 A. There Is No Avoiding Strict Scrutiny .......................................................................... 6 B. Defendants Intentionally Used Race to Shape Admissions ......................................... 7 C. Facial Neutrality Does Not Shield Intentional Discrimination.................................. 10 D. Defendants’ Precedent Is Distinguishable or Superseded by Recent Caselaw.......... 11 E. Plaintiff Is Also Likely to Succeed on her Title VI Claim ........................................ 12 IV. The Equities and Public Interest Favor the Preliminary Injunction ................................ 12 V. Plaintiff Seeks a Narrow, Constitutionally Appropriate Remedy ................................... 13 VI. The Requested Relief Does Not Conflict with Hecht-Calandra ...................................... 14 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 15 Case 1:26-cv-03355-ER Document 47 Filed 06/29/26 Page 3 of 19 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Allen v. Milligan, 146 S. Ct. 1377 (2026)........................................................................................................... 1, 6 Am. Council of Learned Societies v. Nat’l Endowment for the Humanities, No. 25-CV-3657 (CM), 2026 WL 1256545 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2026) ..................................6–8 Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. School Committee of City of Boston, No. 1:21-CV-10330-WGY, 2021 WL 4489840 (D. Mass. Oct. 1, 2021) ..............................11 Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. School Committee for City of Boston, 89 F.4th 46 (1st Cir. 2023)....................................................................................................... 11 Cacchillo v. Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2011).......................................................................................................3 Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York v. Adams, 116 F.4th 161 (2d Cir. 2024) ........................................................................................... passim Christa McAuliffe Intermediate Sch. PTO, Inc. v. de Blasio, 364 F. Supp. 3d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).............................................................................. passim Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, 68 F.4th 864 (4th Cir. 2023) ....................................................................................................

FAQs

What is the purpose of this reply memorandum of law?

It provides legal argument in further support of the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Why does the document argue that the defendants’ distinction is a red herring?

It asserts that the defendants’ mandatory/prohibitory framing does not resolve the underlying issues relevant to the request for preliminary relief.

What reasons does the document give for granting a narrow preliminary injunction?

It argues that ongoing racial discrimination creates irreparable harm, the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits under the applicable standards, and the equities and public interest favor the requested narrow, constitutionally appropriate remedy.

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Ben