OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs bring this action against Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York, and Richard A. Carranza, Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), claiming that the Mayor and Chancellor’s changes to the admissions process for the eight specialized New York City public high schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they discriminate against Asian-American students. Plaintiffs are three organizations — Christa McAuliffe Intermediate School PTO, Inc. (“PTO”), Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York (“CACAGNY”), and Asian American Coalition for Education (“AACE”) — and three individuals — Phillip Yan Hing Wong, Yi Fang Chen, and Chi Wang, who are the parents of students in New York City public schools. Before the Court are two motions: Plaintiffs’ motion for the Court to take judicial notice of certain facts and Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing the challenged changes while this action is pending.For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion for judicial notice is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICEUnder Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), “[t]he court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” The court may take judicial notice of a fact on its own and must take judicial notice of a fact if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information. Fed. R. Evid. 201(c).Plaintiffs ask this Court to judicially notice a variety of facts for the purposes of adjudicating this action, including the instant preliminary injunction motion. The Court addresses Plaintiffs’ requests in turn.1. The Court takes judicial notice of the statistics contained in New York City’s Demographic Snapshot, a database containing demographic information for every public school in New York City. Plaintiffs have rendered certain relevant information from the database into tables and attached them as exhibits to their motion for a preliminary injunction, see Kieser Decl. Ex. 1-5, but ask the Court to take judicial notice of the entire database. As the Demographic Snapshot is information published by the DOE and available on a government website, the Court takes judicial notice of it. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wrights Mill Holdings, LLC, 127 F. Supp. 3d 156, 166 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).2. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in connection with the changes to the Discovery program,1 (1) by the summer of 2020, 20 percent of the seats at each specialized school will be reserved for Discovery program participants, and (2) to participate in the Discovery program, students must attend a school with an Economic Need Index (“ENI”) of at least 60 percent. These facts come from the DOE’s official website, dated June 3, 2018, on a page titled Diversity in Admissions. See Doc. 19 Ex. A. Since the facts are from a government website, and the government is the entity making the changes to the program, judicial notice is appropriate. See Wells Fargo Bank, 127 F. Supp. 3d at 166.3. The Court does not take judicial notice of the statistics and projections in the DOE slide deck to school districts, Doc. 19 Ex. B. Many of the statistics in the slide deck are uncited, including the statistic Plaintiffs specify for judicial notice, that 61 percent of Asian-Americans who received offers to attend a specialized school are low-income, see Doc. 19 Ex. B at 13. The Court will, however, take judicial notice of the facts that the DOE made the slide deck and made the statements in the slide deck, facts which are undisputed by Defendants, see Roberts Decl. 9.4. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Mayor de Blasio’s office, Mayor de Blasio, and Chancellor Carranza made the statements attributed to them in the June 3, 2018 DOE press release, Doc. 19 Ex. J. A press release is a source whose accuracy “cannot reasonably be questioned” as to the fact that the statements contained therein were made.5. The Court does not take judicial notice of the offer rate data for 100 New York intermediate schools contained in the June 14, 2018 Chalk Beat article, Doc. 19 Ex. C. Chalk Beat is a non-government website that publishes news related to public education; it is not a source “whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned” as to the proffered data. Plaintiffs argue that the statistics contained therein should still be judicially noticed because a New York Times article contained the same statistics and stated that they came from the DOE. But this does not lend the quoted statistics any more credence. Presumably, if they are DOE statistics, then Plaintiffs can request them directly from the source.6. The Court does not take judicial notice of any of the facts or data in the August 13, 2018 New York Times article, Doc. 19 Ex. F. The New York Times is a well-respected news publication, but it is not a source “whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned” when it comes to the facts and data Plaintiffs ask the Court to notice, namely, (1) the Specialized High School Admissions Test (“SHSAT”) cut-off for admission at each specialized school in 2018, (2) the SHSAT cut-off score for the Discovery program in 2018, and (3) an explanation of how the Discovery program worked before 2018, Doc. 19 5.7. The Court does not take judicial notice of the statistics on the percentage of Discovery program participants who were Asian-American in 2018 proffered in the August 14, 2018 Chalk Beat article, Doc. 19 Ex. E, for the same reason as item (5), above.8. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Mayor de Blasio made the statements published under his name in a June 2, 2018 Chalk Beat article, Doc. 19 Ex. D. He authored the article. The fact that he made the statements thus “can be accurately and readily determined” from a source “whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2).9. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Mayor de Blasio made the following statements published on Twitter in his official account, @NYCMayor, under his name, on June 3, 2018:Zipcode is limiting destiny in New York City and in our Specialized High Schools. Only 14 percent of students at Bronx Science come from the Bronx. Only 3.4 percent of Brooklyn Tech students come from Central Brooklyn.Stuyvesant High School just admitted almost a thousand students, but only ten of those students were African American and less than thirty were Latino. In a city that is majority African American and Latino.These schools are the proving grounds for future leaders, and unless we believe our leaders should only come from certain communities, we cannot have our most prestigious schools available to only some.Our first reforms will commit 20 percent of the seats to kids from disadvantaged communities. And we will work with Albany to eliminate a system where one broken test dictates a child’s future.So much talent is being locked out right now. Justice has been delayed, but it does not have to be denied. We can fix this. These schools will get better when they reflect all of New York City.A single standardized test can never capture the talent of young people. We need a fairer way to admit students to our Specialized High Schools.See Doc. 19 Ex. H, I. The statements were “tweeted” by the Mayor on his official account, under his name. The fact that he made the statements thus “can be accurately and readily determined” from a source “whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2).10. The Court takes judicial notice of the statements made by Chancellor Carranza in a television interview conducted on June 5, 2018 on local news station Fox 5 New York. Plaintiffs ask the Court to specifically take notice of one of the Chancellor’s statements, “I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admissions to these schools,” Doc. 19 10, citing a New York Times article that reprints the statement in isolation, Doc. 19 Ex. G. Defendants claim that the New York Times article “mischaracterizes the Chancellor’s statements, takes quotes out of context, and creates an inaccurate impression,” and cite to the video footage of the full interview, see Plan to Diversify Elite NYC Schools, FOX 5 (June 5, 2018).2 Roberts Decl. 14. Consequently, the Court sua sponte takes judicial notice of the contents of the full interview. What statements the Chancellor made therein “can be accurately and readily determined from” the video footage of the interview, Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2).Having determined what facts the Court can and shall take judicial notice of in deciding Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court turns to that motion.MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONI. FINDINGS OF FACTA. The Specialized School SystemThe New York City DOE operates eight high schools that, under state law, must admit students solely on the basis of an academic exam. These schools, called “specialized schools,” are the Bronx High School of Science (“Bronx Science”); Stuyvesant High School; Brooklyn Technical High School (“Brooklyn Tech”); Brooklyn Latin School; High School for Mathematics, Science and Engineering at City College of New York; High School of American Studies at Lehman College; Staten Island Technical High School; and Queens High School for the Sciences at York College.3 Wallack Decl.
6, 10. As the parties acknowledge, these high schools offer superior educational opportunities to academically gifted students and admission is highly prized by parents and students alike. Indeed, the three oldest of these schools — Bronx Science, Stuyvesant, and Brooklyn Tech — are widely and historically regarded as amongst the finest public high schools in the country. The schools’ alumni are a testament to this perception; Bronx Science, for instance, has produced eight Nobel Prize winners, and Stuyvesant four. See About Page, Bronx High School of Science;4 History of the School, Stuyvesant High School.5The state law that requires the specialized schools to use testing as the basis for admissions is the Hecht-Calandra Act (the “Act”), and it states the following:Admission to the Bronx High School of Science, Stuyvesant High School and Brooklyn Technical High School and such similar further special high schools which may be established shall be solely and exclusively by taking a competitive, objective and scholastic achievement examination, which shall be open to each and every child in the city of New York in either the eighth or ninth year of study, without regard to any school district wherein the child may reside.N.Y. Educ. Law §2590-g(12)(b) (1997).6 The test the specialized schools use is the Specialized High School Admissions Test (“SHSAT”).To apply to a specialized school, students first decide their order of preference for the schools. Chadha Decl. 4. Students then take the SHSAT, during which they declare and submit their order of preference. Id. The tests are then scored, and the students who took the test are ordered by score from highest to lowest. Id. 5. The student with the highest score is offered a seat at her first choice school. Id. 6. The student with the next highest score is then offered a seat in his first choice school, and so on, until all the seats in a student’s first choice school have been filled. Id. In that case, the student is offered a seat in her second choice school. Id. If all the seats in the second choice school have been filled, the student is placed in her third choice school, and so on. Id. This process continues until all the seats at the eight specialized high schools have been filled.7 Id. By virtue of this system, after each admissions cycle, each specialized school has a cut-off score for admission: the SHSAT score of the last student offered admission to the school.The Hecht-Calandra Act provides only one other means of admission — the Discovery program. The Act expressly provides for the implementation of the Discovery program “to give disadvantaged students of demonstrated high potential an opportunity to try the special high school program.” Roberts Decl. in Opp. to Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj. Ex. 3 at 3. Under the Act, to be eligible for the program, a student must: (1) be disadvantaged; (2) be certified by her current school as being “high potential”; (3) score just below the lowest overall score of all admitted students; and (4) successfully complete a summer preparatory program demonstrating her ability to “cope with the special high school program.” Id.; Chadha Decl.
