In addition to asking SCOTUS for immediate relief, the Plaintiffs made a critical point in their brief specifically related to the District Court’s opinion denying the preliminary injunction.

The District Court ignored the Supreme Court's authority, requiring a thorough, probing, and in-depth review of agency decision-making. Instead, it adopted a "no-look doctrine," which gave absolute deference to federal agencies.

That's wrong.

Motions for preliminary injunction have an interlocutory element, meaning in the case of denial, the party seeking the injunction could seek an appeal while the original complaint/lawsuit is ongoing.

The intent of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was to preserve Jackson Park until all the issues in the April complaint are adjudicated.

Clear-cutting of over 1,000 mature, carbon sequestering trees in Jackson Park.

The disruption of the migratory bird corridor; removing mature trees will harm the migratory bird pattern.

The four thoroughfares, including Cornell Drive, would be closed from the OPC construction, increasing traffic snarls, elevating idle engines contributing to air quality issues and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The long-term effects of smog and increased air quality concerns. (i.e., asthma and other respiratory issues), especially for African American children.

The federal reviews were fundamentally flawed. T. he reviews artificially segmented the OPC project into two pieces. The plaintiffs will argue that this artificial segmentation is integral to what violates the federal statute.

The City's breach of Public Trust (i.e., the City's deal with the Obama Foundation providing nearly 20 prime acres of land to a private entity.

Read the Executive Summary of the lawsuit the Plaintiffs filed in April.