(1) Whether a_ President’s Article II responsibilities warrant equitable tolling of his private civil claims while in office.

(2) Whether a federal court may invoke its inherent authority to impose monetary sanctions on the President and his lawyers based on their advocacy of a substantial, unresolved argument that Article II responsibilities warrant equitable tolling of the President’s private civil claims during his term.

1

North Carolina requires every registered sex of- fender, on pain of felony prosecution, to report to the sheriff every “online identifier” he uses or intends to use, including the pseudonyms under which he blogs, comments on news articles, or posts videos. It also requires the sheriff to disclose these identifiers to any member of the public who asks, and to release them whenever the sheriff deems it “necessary to protect the public.” The Second and Ninth Circuits have held materially similar laws inconsistent with the First Amendment, while the Illinois and Iowa Supreme Courts have upheld them.

The question presented is whether North Caroli- na’s scheme is narrowly tailored as required by the First Amendment.

Federal sentencing courts often must determine whether a defendant’s prior state conviction qualifies as a predicate offense for recidivist enhancements—such as the Career-Offender Guideline (U.S.8.G. §4B1.1) or the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). This case presents the recurrent and important issue that arises when a state supreme court issues a decision that changes the scope of a predicate offense in a way that would alter whether that prior conviction qualifies as a career-offender predicate at a later federal sentencing.

The question presented for review is:

Whether, when applying the Career Offender enhancement (U.S.8.G. §4B1.1), a federal sentencing court must determine a prior state conviction’s qualification as a predicate offense by reference to state decisional law as it existed at the time of the prior offense, or whether it may instead rely on a later authoritative state court decision that reinterprets the scope of the prior offense.

1