Where parties enter into an agreement which expressly terminates on a date certain, and which contains an arbitration provision with a delegation clause that does not survive the expiration of the agreement, should a court or an arbitrator decide whether the parties agreed to arbitrate claims arising from events occurring after the termination of the arbitration agreement?

Respondents are police officers and prosecutors who sent Petitioner Priscilla Villarreal to jail for asking a police officer for facts and then reporting what the officer volunteered. Those officials plotted the local journalist’s arrest not for any legitimate purpose, but to silence a vocal critic.

In a nine-to-seven en banc decision, the Fifth Circuit held the officials have qualified immunity, concluding it was reasonable to arrest Villarreal for routine news reporting under a Texas felony statute no local official had enforced in its 23-year history. This Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez uv. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653 (2024) (per curiam).

But on remand, a splintered Fifth Circuit again held the officials have qualified immunity and largely restored “our previous en banc majority.” In dissent, Judge Higginson remarked, “I do not think it is a proper answer to the High Court to reinstate what we mistakenly said before, just in different packaging.”

The questions presented are:

1. Whether it obviously violates the First Amendment to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing the information they volunteer.

2. Whether qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials who use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment, as decisions

QUESTION PRESENTED The Question Presented is whether incarcerated individuals facing disciplinary segregation that amounts to a deprivation of liberty are entitled the adversarial due process protections described in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), or merely the non- adversarial due process protections described in

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005).

In Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 384 (1966), this Court held that a trial court has an independent obligation under the Constitution to assure itself of a criminal defendant’s competency to stand trial where the defendant’s competency is in doubt. Central to this Court’s decision in Pate was the principle that “it is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent, and yet knowingly or intelligently ‘waive’ his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial.” Id. The Constitution thus requires trial courts to conduct procedurally “adequate” hearings for all defendants whose competency is in doubt, without regard for whether the defendant in question challenges their competency to stand trial. Id. at 378-379. The D.C. Court of Appeals vitiated these protections when it concluded that any procedural deficiencies in a competency proceeding are per se harmless when defense counsel fails to contest the defendant’s competency.

The question presented is:

Whether a procedurally inadequate inquiry into a criminal defendant’s competence is rendered constitutionally harmless if defense counsel does not contest competence, notwithstanding this Court’s decision in Pate that trial courts have an independent and non-waivable obligation to ensure a defendant is competent to stand trial.

Pressure Control over 10 years ago (Nov. 2014). Workforce Safety and Insurance | accepted liability for the injury in 2014, however they are now refusing to cover future medical. Its bad enough they stopped paying for my pain medication, now they are refusing to pay for my medical bills.

2. Workforce Safety and Insurance stated I had “pre-existing conditions”, I would like to know where they are coming up with that as I had no limitations or issues prior to the work related injury.

I. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022), is a conviction for federal bank robbery under Section 2113(a) categorically a crime of violence when bank robbery can be committed by “intimidation” and/or “extortion”?

Il. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022), is aiding and abetting attempted bank robbery under Section 2113(a) categorically a crime of violence?

1

_____ (2 Be We Nero PRESod ee WE. bers ener BY | Loe SEEM oe YS yet “Pe Wea WE yaam!S | FEST mon Wie Lune ME STISE!S Colt WIPEBA AiWo | ___|Mes Pye “To QUESET bh comP Sst Rerense Do | I RRavE WS \none CReCh Earearktin To A&B Weraye | NESS EB Work DYE Bur CEST PISS GSE GONpy | ___| CowSbEtieg TE MAEGER wen TENDED Swe | 4 _|ScRtoener QE Decterties Wee Swe wes | [RE ee SSxotey PAS toed Qe Wout PEpETEA= | _ Deon), Wren okt Euneuor le Me CEosth _____ [dees wet Catlo@etsSe WEL TESTmMeny Mest |

WHETHER ANY oF fie REsPombents Have Pen toner IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION oF THé ConStifoTion OF THE United States 2 a | WHETHER THiS Court HAS JoRisbiCTion WHEN PETHioNER SEEKS Ae AW ADIUDICATION ON THE MERITS OF THIS Pe rinion FoR & WRIT OF HABEAS CoRPUS ¢ | : | WHETHER This COURT HAS TORISDICTION® HEAR Tis APPLICATION FOR AwRiTor HaBeAs CORPUS #74 BY FE- [TONER Who Has Nor Been DETERMINED BY THe UNITED STATES 1 HavE BEEN PROPERLY DeTaweD As Aw ENEMY COMBATANT ANB /oR Is NOT AWAITING @ SUCH DETERMINATION 2

WHETHER THE WRit oF HABEAS CoRPUS SHOULD Be GRAMED w BY This CouRT?

WHETHER PETITIONER Is ACTUALLY INNOCENT; BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, oF THe CRIME CHARGED Agawsl PETTIONER BY THe ResPoubEnts 2

WHETHER THE TUDGMENT oF ConivicTion ENTERED BY THe KesPonDENTS AGAINST PETITIONER Must BE SET ASIDE? WHETHER Tats CourT Can SET ASIDE THe JUDGMENT oF Conviction ENTERED BY RESPONDENTS AGAINST PeTifioneR, ?

The International Parental Kidnapping Act crim1- nalizes removing a child from the United States “with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights.” 18 U.S.C. § 1204. It is an affirmative defense, however, that the defendant “was fleeing an incidence or pattern of domestic violence.” Id. § 1204(c)(2). Until this case, courts uniformly allowed defendants to as- sert this defense based on evidence they were fleeing domestic violence directed either at themselves or their children. The courts below, however, barred Pe- titioner Kira Zielinski from presenting evidence that she fled to Mexico with her four-year-old son because she believed he was being sexually abused by her for- mer spouse. Deprived of her only defense, Ms. Zielinski was convicted under § 1204. The question presented 1s:

Whether a defendant is “fleeing an incidence or pat- tern of domestic violence” under § 1204(c)(2) if she is fleeing domestic violence against her child.

(1)