Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

I’m Suing To Stop New York’s Racially Discriminatory Covid Therapeutic Guidelines

I’m Suing To Stop New York’s Racially Discriminatory Covid Therapeutic Guidelines

Class Action in Northern District of NY: “I am serving as the plaintiff in this case because whether or not medical treatment should be provided should not be decided by the color of someone’s skin. I call on New Yorkers of all races and ethnicities to unite against these discriminatory government guidelines.”

As we previously reported, in late December 2021, NY State Announced Racially Discriminatory Standards For Rationing COVID Therapeutic Treatment. The short summary, as Jane Coleman wrote at the time, was:

The New York State Department of Health has issued official “Guidance” regarding rationing scarce Covid therapeutics which gives preference to non-whites over whites in proving entitlement to the therapies. All people need to demonstrate certain health problems (like testing positive) but non-whites do not need to prove that they personally have an aggravated health risk, it is presumed. Whites, on the other hand, get no such presumption.

The NY Health Department issued a second similar directive also in late December. America First Legal sent a demand letter to the NY Acting Health Commissioner, as we previously reported, demanding an end to the racial preferences, to no avail. The NY Health Department vigorously defends the guidelines with an explanation that does not accurately describe the terms of the guidelines on racial preferences:

State officials have defended their guidelines by citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which show that Black, Hispanic and Native Americans are about twice as likely to die from Covid-19 than white Americans. A spokeswoman for New York State’s Department of Health told Fox News that race did not disqualify patients from treatment but that the guidelines instead considered race as one risk factor.

I have now filed a class action lawsuit as the named plaintiff in the United States District Court in and for the Northern District of New York, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the racial preferences are illegal and an injuction ordering New York State to stop this medical racism.

I am represented by a talented team of lawyers, lead by Gene Hamilton from America First Legal Foundation. Additional counsel are Jonathan F. Mitchell, Adam K. Mortara, and the law firm of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC (Jeffrey Harris, Michael Connolly, and James Hasson).

The lawsuit is against Acting Commissioner of Health Mary T. Bassett, in her official capacity.

America First Legal issued a press release containing this statement from me:

“I am serving as the plaintiff in this case because whether or not medical treatment should be provided should not be decided by the color of someone’s skin. I call on New Yorkers of all races and ethnicities to unite against these discriminatory government guidelines.”

The Complaint alleges, in the introduction and among other things:

Using a patient’s skin color or ethnicity as a basis for deciding who should receive lifesaving medical treatment is appalling. And directing medical professionals to award or deny medical care based on immutable characteristics such as skin color, without regard to the actual health condition of the individual who is seeking these antiviral treatments, is nothing more than an attempt to establish a racial hierarchy in the provision of life-saving medicine. Worse still, New York’s racial preferences ignore the obvious race-neutral alternative policy of making antiviral treatments available to patients of any race who can demonstrate risk factors, such as advanced age, obesity, a compromised immune system, or other medical conditions.

The Complaint further explains the racial preferences, and why the Health Department’s defense that race is just used as a risk factor is no defense, something to be explained more in court proceedings:

9. New York’s policy creates a racial hierarchy in the distribution of life-saving COVID-19 medication. Non-white and Hispanic/Latino individuals who test positive for COVID-19 automatically qualify for oral antiviral treatments, while an identically situated non-Hispanic/Latino white individual is ineligible unless he demonstrates a “medical condition” or “risk factor” that increases his risk for severe illness from COVID-19.

* * *

21. The Department’s policy fails any level of constitutional scrutiny. Even if the Department has an interest in ensuring that only the most at-risk patients will receive scarce antiviral treatments, the policy’s racial preferences are not closely or narrowly tailored to achieving that interest. The Department could have effectively pursued the same goals through the obvious race-neutral alternative of requiring all patients to have enumerated medical conditions or risk factors in order to receive antiviral treatments.

The Complaint also describes my status as a plaintiff:

3. Plaintiff William A. Jacobson is a citizen and resident of Tompkins County, New York, where he teaches law at Cornell University.

* * *

13. Plaintiff does not qualify under the New York guidelines as “[n]on-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity,” and he sues on behalf of a plaintiff class consisting of individuals in New York State who do not qualify under the New York guidelines as “[n]on-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.”

14. Plaintiff is especially at risk for contracting COVID-19 because he teaches at Cornell University, which recently had a severe outbreak despite its extensive COVID protocols. Madeline Rosenberg and Anil Oza, COVID-19 Update: Cornell Reports Record–High 469 Active Student Cases, Cornell Sun (Dec. 13, 2021), https://bit.ly/3GBXrx5.

15. Plaintiff is suffering injury in fact from New York’s racially discriminatory policy because he and other non-Hispanic/Latino white individuals cannot obtain oral antiviral treatments in New York when they contract COVID-19 unless they demonstrate a “medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for severe illness” from the virus, while non-white and Hispanic/Latino residents of New York are not required to make such a showing. This discriminatory treatment inflicts injury in fact, regardless of whether Plaintiff and his fellow class members would ultimately obtain the antiviral treatments in the absence of New York’s racially discriminatory policy. See Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 666 (1993) (“When the government erects a barrier that makes it more difficult for members of one group to obtain a benefit than it is for members of another group, a member of the former group seeking to challenge the barrier need not allege that he would have obtained the benefit but for the barrier in order to establish standing. The ‘injury in fact’ in an equal protection case of this variety is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.”).

16. New York’s policy also injures Plaintiff and his fellow class members by subjecting them to an increased risk of serious illness or death when they acquire COVID-19. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 525 n.23 (2007) (“[E]ven a small probability of injury is sufficient to create a case or controversy—to take a suit out of the category of the hypothetical—provided of course that the relief sought would, if granted, reduce the probability”) (quoting Village of Elk Grove Village v. Evans, 997 F.2d 328, 329 (7th Cir. 1993)); Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625, 633 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[C]ourts of appeals have generally recognized that threatened harm in the form of an increased risk of future injury may serve as injury-in-fact for Article III standing purposes.”).

17. Finally, New York’s policy injures Plaintiff by inflicting emotional and psychological harm on Plaintiff (and others) who are facing increased risk of harm from the pandemic on account of New York’s racially discriminatory policies. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2211 (2021) (“[A] plaintiff’s knowledge that he or she is exposed to a risk of future physical, monetary, or reputational harm could cause its own current emotional or psychological harm.”).

18. All of these injuries are fairly traceable to the racial preferences enforced by Acting Commissioner Bassett, and they will be redressed by declaratory and injunctive relief that prohibits the Commissioner from using racial criteria in determining eligibility for COVID-19 oral antiviral treatments.

The legal Counts are:

Claim 1: The Department’s Racial Preferences Violate The Fourteenth Amendment

Claim 2: The Department’s Racial Preferences Violate Title VI

Claim 3: The Department’s Racial Preferences Violate Section 1557 Of The Affordable Care Act

The following relief is sought:

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

32. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court:

a. certify a class of individuals in New York State who do not qualify under the New York health department guidelines for distribution of COVID-19 therapeutics as “[n]on-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity”;

b. award the declaratory relief described in paragraphs 22, 26, and 30;

c. enter a preliminary and permanent injunction that restrains Acting Commissioner Bassett and her successors from implementing and enforcing any discriminatory racial preferences in the Department’s programs;

d. award costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

e. award all other relief that the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable.

The lawsuit is just starting to get attention, having been picked up by The Albany Times Union, Fox News. The Daily Caller, Just The News, and The Federalist. I’m sure the list will grow.

America First Legal deserves credit for taking on this issue. So many people have been screaming about the blatant racism of the NY health guidelines and wanting to know, ‘when is someone going to do something about it?’ Now someone is.

UPDATE 2-5-2022

Motion For Preliminary Injunction Filed In My Lawsuit Challenging New York’s Racially Discriminatory Covid Therapeutic Guidelines

 


William A. Jacobson v. Mary T. Bassett (NY Health Dept) – Covid Therapeutics Case – Class Action Complaint by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Bravo professor. May you kick some butt with this action.

    William Jacobson, Esq: superstar.

    lady_knight in reply to TrickyRicky. | January 19, 2022 at 11:32 am

    Someone has to not only look at this but the entirety of the protocols. My brother who lives in Saratoga County contracted this through his workplace, a factory that supplies dozens of chain restaurants with food. He can’t vaccinate due to health conditions that run in this family. His vaccinated co-worker refused to wear a mask and follow FDA food safety guidelines. My brother stepped in to tell him to wear his mask and the guy got right in his face screaming at him and spitting in his face. The guy knew he had c19 and refused to quarantine and no one told the employer the guy was sick! So my brother got it bad and went for help at the ER. They gave him one bag of IV as he can’t keep hydrated due to certain symptoms and sent him home. They called in a script to a pharmacy that was closed due to C19. They told my brother to break quarantine and go into the store and get the meds the next day when they would be open again knowing he was too weak to drive. He states they absolutely treated him like crap at the ER when they found out he was not vaccinated. He had to get someone to drive him back to get the meds because regulations wouldn’t allow someone else to pick them up. They set him up a follow up appointment at some clinic for the unvaccinated for 2/1/22. The meds only worked slightly but he is still losing all hydration. They basically left him to fend for himself knowing he lives 30 miles from the nearest stores and there is no delivery services in that rural area for anything! No one is charging the guy who got him sick at all or inspecting the employment situation for food safety. He’s afraid to turn anyone in as he needs the job but now the bosses are telling him he is going to lose his job if they can’t clear him until 2/1/22.

Thank you, Professor Jacobson, for fighting the good fight! What’s utterly dismaying is that such transparently unconstitutional, totalitarian and racist policies are brazenly being instituted in the first place, rationalized by Leftists’ utterly misguided “social justice” ethos.

A boss move. This is one more sign we are at the tipping point where every one starts to jump into action.

I’m donating to everyone involved today.

Best wishes. I bet they fold like some others did soon.

… but if they don’t and if you need any analytical help showing that race is not a factor in COVID risk I will raise an army for you to help.

(correlation is not causation, it’s a proxy for other co-morbidities like being overweight)

Disparities are not discrimination – disparate impact is not evidence of discrimination or inequity (see Thomas Sowell’’s book by the that name)

Or as I like to say it, just because a meteor is more likely to kill a person of color than a white person does not make meteors racist nor is it evidence of racism.

Colonel Travis | January 18, 2022 at 5:39 pm

These disgusting people need to be taken down.
Thank you for fighting, Prof.

“Non-white and Hispanic/Latino individuals who test positive for COVID-19 automatically qualify for oral antiviral treatments,”
*******
The two oral agents, especially Merck’s Molnupiravir have real questions about long term safety. I’m somewhat surprised that the specter of “Medical Experimentation” using POC, especially African American subjects hasn’t been raised.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to SHV. | January 18, 2022 at 6:23 pm

    Don’t worry, they will get around to suing for “Medical Experimentation”, Never missing a chance at the litigation lottery.

If this case isn’t winnable, you might as well stick a fork in the US Constitution. That a state would even try this suggests to me that the Republic is irreparably damaged…by design.

Should the decision to provide medical treatment be based on the color of one’s skin?

It doen’t get any more basic than this. We are down to bedrock. We’re now talking life and death. A decision must be made if this is allowed to stand or our nation falls.

Laws such as this also beg the question: who is white, non-white, Hispanic, black, etc.? Will a genetic test be administered to every individual, and then based upon the results of the test a racial determination made? And what genetic criteria will be used to determine ethnicity and race, and will these criteria and subsequent determinations have the force of law? Scary stuff

    Peabody in reply to sfharding. | January 18, 2022 at 6:31 pm

    According to Harvard University, “there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities.”

    “Race cannot be biologically defined due to genetic variation among human individuals and populations.”

    Thus the color of one’s skin is the deciding factor.

      sfharding in reply to Peabody. | January 18, 2022 at 6:41 pm

      Hmmm, so for a brief moment in time, ex-Virginia governor Ralph Northam legally became a black man, Hilarious!

      ““Race cannot be biologically defined due to genetic variation among human individuals and populations….”

      That’s leftist horsesh-t.

      Tell that any sickle-cell sufferer.

        civisamericanus in reply to TheFineReport.com. | January 19, 2022 at 1:37 pm

        There are some medical conditions in which race is in fact a legitimate factor that a medical doctor needs to know. Black people are more susceptible to sickle cell anemia. White people, and especially fair-skinned ones, are more susceptible than Black people to skin cancer (although Black people are far from immune and need to take any symptoms seriously). Ashkenazi Jews have a higher incidence of Tay-Sachs disease, and so on.

        Everybody, however, can get Covid-19 so I do not see race or ethnicity as a legitimate factor in determining treatment for it, but this is emphatically not medical advice noting that I am not a doctor.

    Geologist in reply to sfharding. | January 18, 2022 at 7:57 pm

    My ancestors (and the Professor’s) were slaves in Egypt (part of Africa) for hundreds of years. Doesn’t that make me African-American?

      civisamericanus in reply to Geologist. | January 19, 2022 at 1:29 pm

      YES! I never thought of this because Egyptians are Caucasians (as are most Jews) but Egypt is in fact in Africa. Israel itself is however located in Asia. This doesn’t change the fact, however, that Jews are descended from people who were slaves or serfs in Africa and who later migrated to what is now Israel.

      Also, Sephardic means “from Spain” so Sephardic Jews are Hispanics.

      Milhouse in reply to Geologist. | January 19, 2022 at 3:53 pm

      Not only does it not make us “African-American”, but even actual Egyptians living in America are not “African-American”. And people from Spain do not count as “Hispanic”. Such are the vagaries of our ridiculous classification regulations.

This is one fine example of why we all should keep donating to the LIF.

    PrincetonAl in reply to broomhandle. | January 18, 2022 at 7:09 pm

    Agree 100%! I did today.

    Also, good time for a friendly reminder that you can send 0.5% of all your Amazon purchases to the charity of your choice.

    I do, I send mine here. Doesn’t cost you anything (in theory, anyway, of course TANSTAAFL), if you aren’t signed up to give to a charity you may as well pick LI.

So now, in addition to vaccine passports, and vaccination papers, will we also be required to carry genetic passports? Perhaps a simple chip implanted in our arm that reveals our genetic code and a list of privileges and/or exclusions derived therefrom. That would create a kind of fluid, customized 14th amendment where what is equal protection under the law depends upon our genetic makeup. It just keeps getting better!

Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-E-E-E-A-A-H-H-H BABY!!!!!!

To my non legal mind should be a slam dunk case for you Professor, all the luck I can send you I will.

Accountability starts with stamping out Affirmative Action (AA). AA was started with good intentions, but its primary assumption that blacks were behind because of lack of opportunity was for the most fault wrong., and to the degree that was the case, it is not today.

AA went horribly wrong when we started dumbing things down in order to accommodate people who simply could not make the grade, and today society is heavily burdened by incompetents.

    As we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    gran2ten in reply to JohnSmith100. | January 19, 2022 at 11:50 pm

    May I add, look at the Comprehension level of today, the average American adult is 7th/8th grade! Grasp this and understand why 12-14 years olds are running the country! They are in the W.H. The House of Rep. and The Senate! Also, this explains our Governors and School Boards!

I wish that I knew how to write this sort of thing, the whole process. I suppose that every lawyer learns how to do this, on some level, in law school.

Ah heck, then we get Hank “Guam” Johnson, sho’nuf lawyer and magistrate judge!

Probably subject to dismissal for lack of standing because the named plaintiff has not been denied therapeutics under the guidance.

    Wisewerds in reply to Juris Doctor. | January 18, 2022 at 8:14 pm

    Probably not. Plaintiff is a member of the high risk class of people who needs immediate access to monoclonal antibody treatment in the event he catches covid, The delay associated with forcing plaintiff to wait to file a lawsuit until actual denial of such treatment could be fatal. Therefore, to deny plaintiff immediate standing subjects plaintiff to the threat of irreperable harm.

      Juris Doctor in reply to Wisewerds. | January 18, 2022 at 10:07 pm

      not really relevant.

      Compaint does not allege named Plaintiff has COVID or tested positive for COVID
      Does not allege the named Plaintiff sought therapuetics or was presided therapuetics.
      Does not allege Plaintiff has been denied anything at all under the policy.

      Case dismissed as unripe
      Case dismissed for lack standing due to the absence of a concrete particularized harm that is traceable to the challenged policy.

      It is what it is.

Embarrass them! Make them suffer! Make them pay! The racists!

Something tells me this case is going to be like the Oberlin case – this might be the only place
It gets covered well.

I’ve also noticed something over the past few years. Often the stories covered here end up getting noticed and the repeated throughout other influential conservative sites and when that happens, the awareness needle starts shifting as well.

Hoping that happens with this case because when it has with the other cases, more irreparable cracks get hammered into the Dem platform.

In my experience law professors make great brief writers and terrible practical attorneys (with the exception of criminal law professors drafted from the occupation, a common practice when i was in law school..less so now). I hope you have a seasoned second seat. Someone who knows to object at the right time, keep quiet at the right time, and speak to facts and law at the right time.
You have a good start. I once saw a complaint that was 125 pages long (Hawaii is a notice state, like the Feds). The judge dismissed it because she said she didn’t have time to read a book, didn’t understand half or more of what she was reading, and couldn’t remember the basis of the count by the time she was to the fifth page of that particular count. She set a page and exhibits limit which is now enshrined in the rules of the court.

    Was that Dodomayor earlier in her career?

    Milhouse in reply to puhiawa. | January 19, 2022 at 4:03 pm

    Prof J is the plaintiff; not being a fool, he does not have himself as a client. As he wrote:

    I am represented by a talented team of lawyers, lead by Gene Hamilton from America First Legal Foundation. Additional counsel are Jonathan F. Mitchell, Adam K. Mortara, and the law firm of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC (Jeffrey Harris, Michael Connolly, and James Hasson).

I like the action generally, but Plaintiff is especially at risk for contracting COVID-19 because he teaches at Cornell University is hilariously false, seeing as a university is mostly populated by 18-22 year olds, which is the safest possible adult population to be around. It’s also an implicit repudiation of Cornell’s mandatory vaccination policy, because if the vaccines worked as claimed he should be at no risk of exposure. I note the plaintiff doesn’t challenge that utterly worthless mandate.

Another clear challenge for the lawsuit is that ALL class members must have article III standing.

Following the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Court emphasized that to have standing, Plaintiffs must show more than the violation of a statutory right. They must show that they have suffered a concrete injury that has a “‘close relationship’ to a harm ‘traditionally’ recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American Courts,” including physical harms, monetary harms, reputational harms, and disclosure of private information.

The Supreme Court then held that “[e]very class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages.” The Court emphasized that “standing is not dispensed in gross” and that “plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim that they press and for each form of relief that they seek (for example, injunctive relief and damages).”
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-court-tightens-standing-9582578/

I suspect that Prof. Jacobson will not earn brownie points in Day Hall by providing his Cornell affiliation in the complaint and citing to a Cornell Daily Sun article regarding the up-tick on a campus that is almost completely vaccinated. Does anyone know some students who got COVID but were not offered monoclonal antibody treatment during the start of their infection due to the NYS policy?

The story made Fox News at Night with Shannon Bream. james Trusty weighed in and feels you have a strong case.

E Howard Hunt | January 19, 2022 at 1:53 am

Dark skinned people in northern climates have vitamin D deficiency (due to their skin’s interaction with sunlight), which is a clear risk factor for SARs infection and COVID. The association is so strong it does not merit testing and the dark skin marker seems a reasonable proxy for this condition for non whites. Of course this is not New York’s stated justification.

    AnAdultInDiapers in reply to E Howard Hunt. | January 19, 2022 at 3:52 am

    Even if it was, it’s not an acceptable reason to racially discriminate.

    Provide vitamin D supplements to people with a vitamin D deficiency.

    Oh look, I just articulated a policy that would address the issue you highlighted without once needing to be racist. I found this easy. Why can’t NY?

    PrincetonAl in reply to E Howard Hunt. | January 19, 2022 at 8:02 am

    The marker is Vitamin D deficiency not race then. A Vit D deficient white person shouldn’t be treated any differently, and should not be behind a black person who is taking Vit D supplements and is not deficient. The guidelines should use the right clinical markers.

    And while I agree with the thrust on making sure you are not Vit D deficient, where has everyone been the last 18 months – eg NY media and NY department of health – on promoting Vitamin D? If they haven’t been, it is not a good look to use that as a criteria but fail to promote its uptake and use.

Anacleto Mitraglia | January 19, 2022 at 7:16 am

If I can change subject, prof. Jacobson, there are any updates from Oberlin?
I read somewhere that Allyn’s Facebook was eventually disclosed.

Steven Brizel | January 19, 2022 at 8:18 am

This could be a case of huge potential in setting back the woke agenda. Other cases of this nature should be commenced as well

Well done and thank you!

“I am serving as the plaintiff in this case because whether or not medical treatment should be provided should not be decided by the color of someone’s skin.”

BRAVO and I agree, but… the court will take many a court’s typical weasel way out and say NO STANDING.

Why? Your ‘injures plaintiff’ list is quite specific, and makes common sense to any one with an ounce of decency and constitutional gravitas, but you aren’t currently ill, seeking treatment, or denied treatment by Acting Commissioner of Health Mary T. Bassett. IE: you haven’t, in fact, been injured.

I guarantee the court will punt on this complaint with NO STANDING, instructing you to come back when you’re on your ‘denied treatment’ death bed – all too late and no avail, of course.

This is a feature, not a bug during this pandemic: medical murder. Yes, I said it. It’s been systemically employed all across this nation against hundreds of thousands of patients since the beginning of this pandemic. Cuomo nursing homes anyone? Simply ask the thousands of medical professionals who’ve been de-platformed, banned, or fired for daring to suggest effective therapeutics, or preventatives. You can thank Dr. ‘mengele’ Fauci for all of it.

You are up against pure evil, professor. Good luck and God bless, but I won’t hold my breath for anything other than NO STANDING.

    civisamericanus in reply to LB1901. | January 19, 2022 at 1:24 pm

    Dr. Fauci did the best that anybody could have done with this mess so please do not compare him to one of history’s worst war criminals. If more people had listened to him in 2020, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved and also probably hundreds of billions in avoided economic disruption. This is one of the very few areas in which the Democrats have done a better job than Republicans–perhaps the only one, but it is obviously important. We need to encourage vaccination and use of effective respiratory protection.

    I am not a lawyer but your comment about “no standing” looks reasonable, though. You have to show that you have been injured to sue. What should happen is that somebody who was turned away from advanced treatment due to his or her race should be the lead plaintiff.

    In the meantime, I would personally have no problem with anybody identifying as whatever race he or she finds most convenient to circumvent and defeat the directive in question. If a man who identifies as a woman can compete in women’s sports or use the women’s locker room, then a person of either gender is equally free to identify as whatever race or ethnicity is most convenient to circumvent and defeat affirmative action preferences and so on. I read that an Asian Indian identified as a Black person to get into medical school, and I don’t have any issues with that.

    Needless to say, a health department that put Covid-19 patients into nursing homes to infect thousands of others has nothing to say that anybody needs to respect.

civisamericanus | January 19, 2022 at 11:32 am

My own position (not legal advice) is to put down whatever race or ethnicity you feel like putting down to circumvent the directive in question. If your family’s been in the US for a long time, who is to say there is no African-American or Native American in your background? (Robert Heinlein, who did not like white supremacists at all, pointed out that this was something to which they should give considerable thought.)

It’s just as likely that you might be part Hispanic, especially if your family is from Florida or the Southwest–or for that matter the Netherlands or parts of Italy, both of which were once owned by Spain. Sephardic Jews are Hispanic by definition.

It’s called “checking the box” and it has also been used to circumvent and defeat affirmative action preferences.

The easiest argument against this suit is that the plaintiff has no standing because he’s not sick yet. The injury he claims is that if he were one day to get sick, and not have another risk factor, he would be denied treatment while a similarly situated person who wasn’t white would be treated. But that’s a hypothetical injury; who is to say that he will ever need treatment, and if he does who is to say that he will not have a risk factor? So the argument would go, find a plaintiff who has actually been turned down because he is white, and come back with him as plaintiff. Then you can get an emergency injunction to get him treated immediately, and proceed with the case. The state could also try to moot the case by giving the named plaintiff the treatment.

Professor, God Bless You. I wish you success with this action. IANAL, and I cannot argue the legal facts in your case.

Any decent person knows that giving/withholding available medical care based on race is vile.

I was never a big internet poster to begin with, but I posted here the first time to support the Colonel who threw his life away to tell the truth about his superiors. What you are doing here is perhaps more important.

I said I would not post anywhere on the internet again, and this post puts fact to the hypocrasy of that statement, but you are doing good.

This lunacy just makes me crazy and I don’t want to read it everynight. But I wish you the best on this endevor sir, it’s worth it. And I hope you prevail.

I am in Michigan. Immune compromised and on immune suppression due to Stem Cell Transplant due to Leukemia. Are there any lawyers in Michigan willing to take this on?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode