1. At least ten states’ courts and four federal circuit courts recognize that a state’s unknowing presentation of false testimony denies a defendant due process. At least three states’ courts and five federal circuit courts hold the opposite: only the knowing presentation of false testimony violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Which side of the split is correct?

2. At Petitioner’s trial on charges of sexually abusing two girls, the State of Texas called two witnesses who falsely testified that a swab of one girl’s vagina tested positive for a protein unique to semen. Was the false testimony material, as the trial court concluded but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected?

This case presents an important question of statutory interpretation involving a federal criminal penalty provision that Congress drafted using the word “or” to connect at least four different sentencing possibilities, but the Second Circuit interpreted here as mandating only a life sentence, namely:

Whether the disjunctive language at 18 U.S.C. §1958(a) providing “if death results, [the offender] shall be punished by death or life imprisonment, or shall be fined not more than $250,000, or both,” permits the district court to impose a sentence of death or life imprisonment or a fine or some combination of those options for a defendant convicted of murder-for-hire?

After under two months, commencing after Thanks- siving 2020 until separation just after Epiphany 2021, respondent Sara Perez held temporary employment with an essential business during the COVID-19 pandemic and brought a class action wage and hour complaint on April 15, 2021. That essential business, petitioner California Herbal Remedies, Inc., a licensed cannabis dispensary, typically employs marginalized workers who innocently earn a living wage out of public view, cloistered and monastic, while quietly celebrating their privacy protections afforded by the Federal and State Constitutions, as well as newly enacted California privacy statutes. As not any other employee presented a wage and hour claim, petitioner asked the trial court to authorize an “opt-in” class action notice because those others are unnamed, unidentified, and earn their wages within a violent and stigmatized environment. Petitioner argued an affirmative “opt-in” serves as a waiver of their existing privacy protection and written election to participate in the class action; it did so because the standard “opt-out” exposes them to violence and stigmatization for failure to respond to a single mailer. The questions presented are:

1. Does the “opt-out” class action notice procedure in a State, like California with Constitutional and statutory employee privacy protections, burden third- party employee privacy and substantially interfere with their First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment privacy protections?