96 F.4th 106
2d Cir.2024Background
- Do No Harm, an organization, challenged Pfizer’s Breakthrough Fellowship program, alleging race-based discrimination.
- Simultaneously with filing suit, Do No Harm sought a preliminary injunction to halt and change the fellowship’s selection process.
- The case was brought under associational standing, relying on alleged injuries to two members, identified only as Members A and B, both using pseudonyms.
- Neither member had actually applied to Pfizer’s Fellowship program; their declarations included only general intentions to apply.
- The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing, and this was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing for Associational Plaintiffs | Associational standing does not require naming individual members, only identifying injury; evidence of members' readiness to apply suffices. | Real names of injured members are necessary to confirm injury and justiciability; pseudonymous declarations are insufficient. | Organization lacks standing; majority holds that real names are required for associational standing at this stage. |
| Proof of Imminent Injury | Stated intent and qualifications to apply, plus declarations from members, demonstrate imminent injury. | Vague, conclusory declarations do not show readiness or imminent injury; no concrete steps or history of application. | Declarations were too general and conclusory to establish imminent injury or readiness to apply. |
| Preliminary Injunction Standard | Association satisfied summary judgment standard for demonstrating standing based on evidence submitted. | Plaintiff failed to meet heightened burden for preliminary injunction due to insufficient factual record and anonymous declarants. | Plaintiff failed to meet the necessary standard; proper action was dismissal. |
| Constitutional Basis for Naming Requirement | No constitutional rule obligates plaintiffs to provide real names for associational standing; precedent supports identification, not naming. | Naming is essential to prevent hypothetical claims and ensure real controversy; names confirm sincerity and allow for judicial scrutiny. | Majority imposes an unfounded "real name" test, creating a new constitutional rule for standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (standard for preliminary injunctive relief)
- Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (requirements for organizational/associational standing)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (associational standing doctrine)
- Carney v. Adams, 592 U.S. 53 (injury-in-fact and "ready and able" standard for standing)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (organizational standing; identification vs. naming member requirement)
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (requirement to identify affected individuals for standing)
- NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (First Amendment right of organizational members to anonymity)
- Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (standing for barriers to application, even without actual application)
- Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (support for "ready and able" test in equal protection claims)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (recurring programs and standing)