Whether a lower court mandate should be recalled when the Supreme Court expressly abrogates the ruling by name and the lower court opinion continues to cause irreparable harm to free speech

QUESTIONS PRESENTED When this Court ruled that California’s Reproductive FACT Act violates the First Amendment, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S.Ct. 2361, 237174 (2018) (““NIFLA”), it also abrogated by name the panel decision at bar, rendering it demonstrably wrong. Other circuits when confronted with supervening decisions by this Court that do not mention a lower court opinion by name but place its core holdings in question have recalled the mandate. See e.g., Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1988). However, here, the Third Circuit refused to recall the mandate, leaving in place a blatant content-based violation of the First Amendment that creates irreparable harm each day the mandate is not recalled. See Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015). The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it refused to recall its mandate after this Court explicitly abrogated its opinion by name. 2. Whether a lower court mandate should be recalled when this Court expressly abrogates the ruling by name and when the ii lower court’s abrogated opinion continues to cause irreparable harm to free speech. 3. Whether a lower court opinion should be vacated and the mandate recalled when this Court expressly overrules the opinion by name and when the lower court opinion continues to cause irreparable harm to free speech. 4. Whether this Court’s explicit abrogation of the lower court’s opinion by name which departed from this Court’s free speech precedents is an extraordinary circumstance justifying recall of the mandate when the lower court opinion continues to cause irreparable harm to free speech.