23-3
2d Cir.May 1, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Robert Sampson is a Stony Brook medical student who sued the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) under the ADA, alleging denial of testing accommodations for USMLE Step 1 and seeking a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring accommodations.
- Sampson separately sued Stony Brook for discrimination and sought to enjoin his dismissal under the school's seven‑year graduation rule; that case was stayed while the parties consented to a 60‑day extension.
- The district court granted Sampson a mandatory preliminary injunction against NBME ordering accommodations on Step 1.
- NBME appealed; the Second Circuit reviews preliminary injunctions for abuse of discretion and applies heightened standards for mandatory injunctions (strong showing of irreparable harm and clear/substantial likelihood of success).
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court erred in finding a strong showing of irreparable harm because Sampson’s ability to continue medical school depended on the separate Stony Brook litigation.
- The panel instructed the district court on remand to consider developments in the Stony Brook case and whether Stony Brook (or NBME in the Stony Brook case) is a required party under Rule 19.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sampson showed irreparable harm to justify a mandatory preliminary injunction | Sampson: without accommodations he will likely fail Step 1 and cannot progress in medical school | NBME: Sampson’s progression depends on Stony Brook’s decision to dismiss him; harm is contingent on separate litigation | Vacated injunction — district court erred; harm was contingent on the Stony Brook case so Sampson failed to show the required strong showing of irreparable harm |
| Whether heightened standards for mandatory injunction were met | Sampson: met heightened standards (strong irreparable harm and clear likelihood of success) | NBME: Sampson did not meet heightened standards | Court held the district court did not adequately apply the heightened mandatory‑injunction standard and remanded for reconsideration |
| Whether other parties are necessary under Rule 19 | Sampson: (implicit) relief against NBME alone sufficient | NBME: district court should consider whether Stony Brook is a required party because relief may be ineffective without it | Court suggested district court consider joinder of Stony Brook (or whether NBME should be joined in the Stony Brook case) on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Oneida Nation of N.Y. v. Cuomo, 645 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for preliminary injunction review)
- Lynch v. City of New York, 589 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2009) (framework for finding abuse of discretion)
- Yang v. Kosinski, 960 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2020) (heightened standards for mandatory preliminary injunctions)
- United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procs., 412 U.S. 669 (U.S. 1973) (subsequent events generally do not affect validity of a previously entered preliminary injunction)
- Ramsay v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 968 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2020) (discussing limitations on relief when a third party is not joined)