Whether plaintiffs' injury is imminent where it flows from a predictable course of events that results from the defendant's conduct

Questions Presented During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted emergency approval for lifesaving oral antiviral treatments. Facing a severe shortage of these treatments, the State of New York and New York City issued directives instructing medical providers to prioritize treatments to individuals on the basis of race. Petitioners are New York City residents who are disadvantaged by the directives’ racial criteria. The Second Circuit held that being disadvantaged for lifesaving treatments on account of race was not an “actual or imminent” injury. It required Petitioners to show they were denied treatment on the basis of race. Because the oral antiviral treatments must be taken within five days of symptom onset, the lower court’s decision effectively shields the government’s race-based directives from judicial review. The questions presented are: 1. Whether plaintiffs’ injury is imminent where it flows from a predictable course of events that results from the defendant’s conduct. 2. Whether the Second Circuit’s ruling conflicts with Ne. Fla. Chapter of Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 508 U.S. 656, 666 (1993), which holds that the “injury in fact in an equal protection case” involving racial discrimination “is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.”