Update: Parents Defending Education asks federal judge for a preliminary injunction against eight district policies.

PDE lays out its arguments in a 33 page memorandum of law and accompanying exhibits. But the organization's lawyers seem to realize that they need to overturn some Second Circuit precedents first.

For reasons that are not entirely clear, the federal court docket for the Southern District of New York has been belatedly updated with a June 13 notice of motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement by the district of eight policies being challenged in a lawsuit brought by Parents Defending Education on June 12.

The plea:

“Plaintiff requests an injunction prohibiting Defendants from taking any action to enforce against students the prohibitions on “harassment” and materially similar terms contained in District Policies 0110, 0110-R, 0115, 115-R, 0115-E, 5300, 4526, and 4526-R.”

However, the notice of motion for a preliminary injunction also notes that “two binding yet erroneous” precedent cases in the federal judiciary’s Second Circuit, which we in Croton are part of, would require the court to “deny PDE’s motion and dismiss its case.” PDE’s lawyers are thus asking Judge Cathy Seibel, who has been assigned to the case, to rule quickly on its motion “so it can challenge those precedents on appeal.”

It seems clear that PDE and its attorneys are attempting to overturn previous court decisions that give school districts wide latitude in enacting anti-harassment and related policies. The plaintiffs obviously have the option of pursuing their arguments up to the U.S. Supreme Court, should that heavily conservative body be willing to hear them.

Accompanying the motion are a number of exhibits, including new affidavits from the three Croton-Harmon parents (Parent A, B, and C), along with a 33 page memorandum of law in which PDE’s lawyers lay out their legal arguments for the preliminary injunction.

Among the exhibits are Croton-Harmon superintendent Stephen Walker’s June 13 statement to the “Croton-Harmon community,” defending the district’s policies. That document, which underscores the district’s determination to enforce its policies, now becomes part of the lawsuit, and presumably will be part of PDE’s argument for why it is entitled to a preliminary injunction that would take quick effect, rather than waiting months or years for the case to be litigated.

We will have more details about the legal arguments for a preliminary injunction outlined in the memorandum and further updates soon. Meanwhile, readers who have not already done so may want to consult the commentary on the case we published earlier today, in which we stated our views about what is at stake in this case for our community.

Comments policy: Please be polite and respectful.