Whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950), the court of appeals' judgment should be vacated where the FDC, after prevailing in the court of appeals, unilaterally rendered the case moot, thereby depriving Petitioner of an opportunity to seek this Court's review of the merits of the court of appeals' judgment

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Reiyn Keohane is a Florida prisoner who challenged the denial of medically necessary care for gender dysphoria under then-applicable Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) policies. Following a trial, she obtained an injunction from the district court mandating the care. The FDC prevailed on appeal but then unilaterally applied a new, unchallenged policy to Ms. Keohane and granted her the relief she had requested, rendering Ms. Keohane’s challenge to the prior policies moot. Ms. Keohane sought vacatur on the ground that the FDC, as prevailing party, had unilaterally rendered her case moot, but the court of appeals denied the motion without explanation. The question presented is whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950), the court of appeals’ judgment should be vacated where the FDC, after prevailing in the court of appeals, unilaterally rendered the case moot, thereby depriving Petitioner of an opportunity to seek this Court’s review of the merits of the court of appeals’ judgment. i