Head Administrative Judge, and who maintains a direct professional and

| personal relationships with the specific judges overseeing Judicial Assignment and the adjudication of the insider’s own family matter ?

2. Whether a procedural two-step custody framework under which a state court : | first (1) determines if a fit parent has shown ‘sufficient change’ to permit | amendment, then second (2”) conducts evidentiary fact-finding, in effect forecloses on the court a reasonable opportunity to hear timely evidence of child best interests, and whether that thereby creates a structural fairness issue ! protected against by the Fourteenth Amendment ? |
3. Whether a state’s failure to utilize a presumption favoring rebuttable equal custody rights constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of parental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment ? | |

2. Whether Article III courts may apply McDonnell Douglas at summary judgment as a rigid evidentiary filter that weighs, divides, and rejects preserved pretext and circumstantial evidence in isolation, rather than reviewing the whole record, drawing reasonable inferences for the nonmovant, and reserving disputed inferences for the jury.

3. Whether Article III permits a federal court to rely on the law-of-the-case doctrine to avoid correcting preserved Fifth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 violations where exceptions were preserved, material facts remained for a jury, the district court imposed a post-remand discovery freeze and violated the mandate rule, and the record supported correction despite an admitted incomplete review by the Eleventh Circuit which affirmed judgment.

| |

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(¢)(83)—which permanently prohibits all unlawful users of controlled substances and all drug addicts from possessing firearms, without any pre-deprivation process or individualized finding of dangerousness—is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and this Court’s historical-tradition test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, United States v. Rahimi, and United States v. Hemant.

in