Three anonymous men on the New York Police Department's list of gang members have urged a federal judge to reject the city's bid to dismiss their putative class action, saying their claims are based on ongoing racial discrimination and civil rights violations.

The plaintiffs filed their memorandum Thursday in the Eastern District of New York opposing the city's bid to have the case dismissed with prejudice. The city had contended the claims were "highly speculative" and not suitable for a class action.

But the plaintiffs contended Thursday that the city's motion was not only flawed but acknowledged that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged most of their claims.

"They do not address the staggering racial disparities in their database, their knowledge of these disparities, or other evidence of intentional discrimination," the plaintiffs argued.

The proposed class action, filed in New York federal court, challenges the nation's largest police department's criminal group database, a massive list of alleged gang members that the NYPD has maintained is a key tool for investigators. However, 99% of the more than 13,000 people labeled as active gang members on the list are Black or Latino, some as young as 13 years old, the plaintiffs allege.

The proposed class representatives, identified only as "Adam," "Bryan" and "Chris," allege they have personally been harassed, monitored, detained and interrogated because they were on the NYPD's list. This has affected their ability to be around family, post online, and even spend time with their children at local playgrounds, they claim.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ballard Spahr LLP and several nonprofit groups. They allege the NYPD's conduct has violated the First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, similar provisions in the state Constitution, and a New York City prohibition on biased policing. They seek to block the city from using or updating the list.

In late August, the city filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, arguing the lawsuit was speculative, and its claims were unsuitable for a class action. The city also contended the plaintiffs should not be able to proceed anonymously.

On Thursday, the men argued the city's dismissal motion was an "attempt to recast and narrow plaintiffs' claims, suggesting, for example, that plaintiffs challenge only pretextual stops, rather than the creation of a municipally sanctioned, racially discriminatory surveillance program."

The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin Jason, Elizabeth Caldwell, Lauren Carbajal, Alexsis Johnson and Catherine Logue of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Philip Desgranges, Rigodis Appling and Alexandra Ogunsanya of The Legal Aid Society, Andrew Case and Mariana Lopez of LatinoJusticePRLDEF, Anne Venhuizen and Isabel Bolo of The Bronx Defenders and Samhitha Medatia, Marjorie Peerce, Samuel Erlanger, Marcel Pratt, Katherine Oaks and Christopher Hatfield of Ballard Spahr LLP.

The city and its officials are represented by Kathleen Reilly and Muriel Goode-Trufant of the New York City Law Department.

The case is Plaintiffs 1-3 et al. v. The City of New York et al., case number 1:25-cv-02397, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

--Editing by Janice Carter Brown.