Christa McAuliffe Intermediate School PTO, Inc. v. De Blasio

Background

The plaintiffs challenged changes to the Discovery program used for admissions to eight specialized New York City public high schools. The plaintiffs alleged that the changes, although written in race-neutral terms, had a discriminatory effect on Asian-American students and were adopted with that intended effect, violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The proposed intervenors were organizations and children who supported the revised Discovery program. The organizations advocated for educational equity or diversity. The children included a current specialized-high-school student, students who qualified for the revised Discovery program, and a student planning to apply to a specialized high school. The proposed intervenors sought to defend the revised program and preserve its claimed gains in access and diversity.

The court had previously denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the revised program would likely survive constitutional review. The Second Circuit later affirmed that decision but concluded that, on the record before it, the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing, while suggesting that the problem might be curable. Those earlier rulings were not the decision addressed by this opinion; this opinion decided only the intervention motion and the requested conditions.

Intervention as of Right

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) requires intervention when the applicant’s motion is timely, the applicant has an interest related to the litigation, the outcome may impair the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, and the existing parties do not adequately represent the interest.

The court found the motion timely. It also found that the proposed intervenors had legally protectable interests in increased access to educational opportunities and in preserving increased racial diversity and reduced racial isolation at the specialized high schools. Those interests were directly affected by the challenge to the revised Discovery program.

The court further found that the proposed intervenors’ interests could be impaired if the revised program were struck down. They had no other avenue in this litigation to defend the program, and, if they remained nonparties, they could not appeal or otherwise contest an adverse ruling against it.

Although the defendants and proposed intervenors shared the objective of defending the revised program, that shared objective ordinarily creates a presumption that the defendants adequately represent the intervenors’ interests. The court concluded that the proposed intervenors overcame that presumption. In particular, the defendants sought to prevent the intervenors from presenting arguments or pursuing discovery concerning whether the Department of Education had previously discriminated against any group of students. The court viewed that requested restriction as showing that the defendants and proposed intervenors had adverse interests concerning a possible defense based on remedying past discrimination.

The court therefore granted intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2). It added that, even if intervention as of right had not been available, it would have granted permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) because the motion was timely, the claims shared legal and factual questions with the main case, and the proposed intervenors could contribute relevant perspectives.

Requested Conditions

The defendants asked the court to restrict the proposed intervenors from materially expanding discovery, joining new parties, bringing a cross-claim against the defendants, seeking relief beyond dismissal of the action, or presenting arguments or discovery concerning alleged past discrimination by the Department of Education.

The court declined to impose the first four conditions. The proposed intervenors had represented that they did not anticipate significant additional discovery, did not plan to join new parties or bring a cross-claim, and did not plan to seek relief beyond dismissal. The court also declined to impose the fifth condition because the proposed intervenors described the possible arguments about past discrimination as a limited defense to the plaintiffs’ legal theory, and the court found no demonstrated prejudice from allowing that argument.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the proposed intervenors’ motion to intervene and denied the defendants’ request for the proposed restrictions. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.