Mamás files preliminary injunction motion.
On January 22, 2025, Mamás filed its motion for preliminary injunction. The motion requests that the court order DPS to halt the school closures that it has planned for the 2025-26 school year. We have requested that the court set a hearing to accept evidence about whether or not DPS violated its own policy when DPS Superintendent Alex Marrero requested the school closures and the Board of Education voted to approve them.
What is a preliminary injunction?
A preliminary injunction is an emergency and temporary court order that, typically, stops someone from doing something harmful before they do it. If the court enters a preliminary injunction, it remains in effect until the lawsuit is resolved, which sometimes can take years.
In order to be eligible for a preliminary injunction, the party asking for it has to have filed a lawsuit that alleges that the other party violated the law in some way, or is threatening to violate the law. The party moving for a preliminary injunction has to convince the court of six things: (1) they are likely to win the lawsuit they filed; (2) the court order they are asking for will prevent a danger or real, immediate, and irreparable injury (harm); (3) money damages awarded later will not be adequate to repair the harm done; (4) the injunction would not harm the public interest; (5) the balance of equities favors the injunction; and (6) the injunction will preserve the status quo (keep things the same as they are now) or otherwise protect rights pending trial.
What are some of the barriers to getting a preliminary injunction (and even winning in the long run)?
The legal system treats preliminary injunctive relief as abnormal or atypical, and the expectation is that parties will resolve their disputes through the usual litigation process. For that reason, it can be difficult to convince a court to issue an order, before all the evidence in a case is developed, prohibiting one of the parties from doing something they otherwise would have done. But, we think that Mamás’ case is exactly the type of case where preliminary injunctive relief is needed and jusitified.
One of our key challenges in this case for both the short- and long-term is a significant resource imbalance. Denver Public Schools is a massive government agency that has the backing of multi-billionaires from around the country. DPS has strong relationships with some of the biggest law firms in Denver whose lawyers charge upwards of $1000 or more per hour. The district, private market-based education advocates, lawyers, real estate investors, and investment bankers have a significant financial interest in ensuring that they are able to continue the system we challenge in this lawsuit, and we fully expect them to wield their substantial resources to protect that system. That said, one of the important reasons we filed this lawsuit is to support Denver schoolchildren and their families in persisting in the hope that even billionaire-backed systems must be accountable and follow the law like the rest of us. We believe there is enormous power in that message, and it doesn’t require any money or political influence to carry.
Finally, we are advancing new and untested legal theories in this case, and our complaint is clear about that. Our legal system relies heavily on the idea of “precedent,” which means that courts’ primary role is to reinforce already established norms and rules. Because the Colorado Supreme Court has not directly weighed in on the questions we raise in our legal claims, the district court (the first court to hear this case, and the court that will rule on our requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief) does not have established legal standards to use to decide the issues. That creates a high likelihood that whatever decisions are made in the district court (or the “trial” court) in this case will be appealed by one or both sides of the case. We fully expect this case to eventually make its way to the Colorado Supreme Court, which is the Court that has the ultimate say on legal issues of “first impression.” In other words, this case is going to take a long time to be completely resolved, unless DPS decides to correct the systemic issues on its own and Mamás agrees to settle its claims against DPS.
Why try anyway?
First, and most importantly, we believe we’ve got the law right. Even though we are advancing novel legal claims, DPS has regularly been in legal trouble for things like running a racially segregated school system, failing to provide adequate educational opportunities to students who speak languages other than English, and violating the rights of students with disabilities. Unfortunately, the level of court supervision that DPS is already subjected to is not adequate. We have decided to try to enforce additional laws that govern DPS, including those that have to do with how DPS collects and manages taxpayer money.
Of equal importance, we believe strongly in the idea that former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis so beautifully articulated: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Power imbalances and insidious misconduct thrive in the shadows. One of the cornerstones of the judicial system in the U.S. is that it is free and open to anyone with a valid legal claim to bring. Courts require proof, truth, and logic. In this way, they provide shelter in the storm of alternative facts swirling all around us. By taking the problems with DPS out of the political arena and into a space that requires honesty, we are working to clearly define what is true or untrue, even if the court does not ultimately agree with us on the law (which sometimes happens).
What happens if the court grants the motion for preliminary injunction?
We have requested that the court “enjoin” the school closures DPS has planned for the 2025-26 school year. That means we are asking the court to order DPS to keep the schools open. If the court does that, DPS will be prohibited from closing the schools it voted on November 21, 2024, to shutter, and those schools will remain an option for Denver students in DPS’ “school choice” system.
What happens if the court denies the motion?
Even if the court denies our motion for preliminary injunction, the lawsuit will still move forward. We anticipate that DPS will file motions to dismiss the case, arguing that we have not alleged any facts in our nearly 150-page complaint that demonstrate unlawful conduct, and perhaps that the law does not support our theories of liability. We will probably spend many months waiting for the court to rule on those motions, as it will need enough time to understand the case and the parties’ legal arguments, and the case will move forward from there. That will either involve us appealing to the Colorado Court of Appeals if the court grants the motions to dismiss (and eventually perhaps the Colorado Supreme Court); or the case will move to the fact-gathering stage (“discovery”), where we will have the opportunity to request documents from DPS and take sworn testimony of people who have information about DPS’ conduct as alleged in the complaint. You can, of course, follow updates on the case here.