This case presents a square and acknowledged conflict over an exceptionally important question under the Reha- bilitation Act of 1973.

In the proceedings below, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit held that the Rehabilitation Act does not authorize retaliation claims, despite the Act’s direct incorporation of the ADA’s express anti-retaliation provision. In so hold- ing, the 2-1 majority expressly departed from the con- trary national consensus that has existed in every other circuit for decades. This novel statutory holding was the sole basis of the majority’s decision, and it leaves the Act’s essential protections in disarray: anti-retaliation safe- guards are a common and essential component of federal anti-discrimination schemes, and the decision below dis- rupts the Act’s uniform operation across hundreds (if not thousands) of cases.

The question presented is:

Whether Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, authorizes a private right of action for retalia- tion.

(I)

1. Do convicted felons have a Second Amendment right, or do only law-abiding persons enjoy this right?

2. Does 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) withstand Second Amendment scrutiny in all of its applications, or is it unconstitutional as applied to some felons?

1

The only evidence supporting BJ McElveen’s convictions for two counts of armed robbery was the trial testimony of a DNA analyst who acted as a surrogate for the out-of-court conclusions of his absent colleagues. While Mr. McElveen’s case was pending on direct appeal, this Court ruled that a state may not introduce testimonial, out-of-court statements of a forensic analyst at trial “through a surrogate analyst who did not participate in their creation.” Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779, 808 (2024). The question presented 1s:

Whether, in light of this Court’s intervening decision in Smith v. Arizona, this Court should grant the petition, vacate the judgments below, and remand this matter for reconsideration?

1

The parties to the original proceeding in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and the Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals are the Petitioner Karen Altagracia Pérez, Defendant-Petitioner (hereinafter “Ms. Perez’) and the Respondent the United States, Plaintiff-Respondent. The Petitioner is not a corporation.

ial