Petitioner challenged the legality of his 2003 federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that it was unconstitutionally enhanced under the residual clause of the then-mandatory career offender (Guideline—a provision materially indistinguishable from the residual clause this Court held unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).

The court of appeals rejected petitioner’s challenge, holding that this Court’s intervening decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023)—which held that § 2255(e)’s saving clause does not allow resort to § 2241 to raise claims based on intervening statutory-interpretation decisions—forecloses relief even for constitutional challenges. The court of appeals held further that this result raises no Suspension Clause problem, even where, as here, a federal prisoner is left with no forum in which to raise a constitutional challenge to his plainly unconstitutional sentence.

Approximately three weeks after the court of appeals issued its mandate, petitioner finished serving his term of supervised release, completing his entire challenged sentence and mooting the case before he could seek this Court’s review.

The question presented is:

Whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950), this Court should vacate the court of appeals’ judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.

(i)

Students have a First Amendment right to wear political apparel to school unless it causes substantial disruption. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 508 (1969). The Court later recognized a narrow exception by allowing schools to prohibit profane and sexually lewd speech. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 408 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

This case concerns “Let’s Go Brandon,” a popular political slogan for expressing disdain for President Joe Biden. Members of Congress have used it during floor speeches, and it airs uncensored on broadcast TV and radio. But a divided Sixth Circuit panel applied Fraser to hold a Michigan school district can ban high school students from silently wearing apparel with the slogan because of its origin in a profane chant.

To reach its published holding, the majority split with the Third and Ninth Circuits, which confine the Fraser exception to “plainly” profane and lewd speech. The majority instead held Fraser permits censoring nondisruptive political speech that any single teacher or administrator “reasonably understands” as vulgar.

Judge Bush dissented that the test grants schools “unrestrained authority to suppress speech based on subjective interpretations’ and, given nationwide confusion over its scope, “the Supreme Court … must ultimately clarify, and ideally limit, Fraser’s reach.”

The question presented 1s whether Fraser permits schools to censor nondisruptive political speech that is not plainly profane or lewd.

1. Whether a defendant can be procedurally barred from raising inef fective assistance of counsel claims before a court that lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

2. Does a jurisdiction limiting clause in a statute only apply if the statute is charged?

3. Does the weight of a jurisdictional question allow for a bypass of any time bars?

4. Can a question of a court’s jurisdiction be muted by a claim of procedural default?

5. Can a proceeding be time barred if the imposing court never had the power to bring / prosecute a given charge?

6. As established, jurisdiction of a court is the first element examined before a court proceeds. When a question pertaining to the jurisdiction of a lower court is brought to the appellate court is that to be included in the primary examination of elements?

7. When is a deployed, active member of the Armed Forces not subject to MEJA and/or UCM?

8. Does 18 USC §2252A have extraterritorial reach to include active military personnel located overseas in Poland?

9. Whether 18 USC §2252A apply to conduct that occurs in Poland when an individual engages in the criminal conduct not on any land controlled by the U.S. government.

10. Does a charge under 18 USC §2252A allow the courts to disregard clear directives

(statutes) from Congress; if so, is the unsolicited receipt of child pornography

| in a foreign country a crime that allows the courts to ignore Congress’ directives as outlined in 18 USC §3261(d); if not how is the restriction on the district court dismissed by the district court when a defendant falls squarely within the class in 18 USC $3261, and as such was supposed to have the charge heard pursuant to the UCMJ.