The New York University Law Review is engaging in illegal race and sex discrimination when selecting articles for publication, as it asks authors to identify their race, sexual orientation, and gender identity when submitting manuscripts, and admits on its website that it considers whether submissions are written by "authors from underrepresented backgrounds in the legal profession." The Law Review also discriminates in favor of racial minorities, women, homosexuals, and transgender individuals when selecting its members—a practice that violates the unambiguous text of Title VI and Title IX. Petitioner Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP) is a membership association that includes scholars and academics who submit articles to the NYU Law Review and intend to continue submitting their manuscripts in the future. FASORP has sued NYU to enjoin the discriminatory membership- and article-selection policies of its Law Review. FASORP also alleges that the NYU School of Law discriminates in its faculty hiring by conferring preferences on female and minority faculty candidates at the expense of white men. The court of appeals, however, held that FASORP had failed to allege standing, even though the complaint explains in detail how FASORP's members are suffering discriminatory treatment on account of these policies. The question presented is: Should the Court summarily reverse the court of appeals' holding that FASORP failed to allege standing in its amended complaint?

Should the Court summarily reverse the court of appeals' holding that FASORP failed to allege standing in its amended complaint?