Whether petitioners' summary removal from Colorado to Kansas violated clearly established rights to procedural due process, a warrant or valid court order, and familial association

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Qualified immunity, to many observers, has transmogrified into absolute immunity. Lawyers from across the ideological spectrum joined in remarkable amici curiae briefs! articulating problems with the same element of qualified immunity as is central to this case, namely, the “clearly established right” requirement. Magnifying the importance of the question here is the fact that government employees from two states engaged in a cross-border agreement to circumvent Colorado statutes which were specifically designed to prevent summary child snatchings. Agreements like the one here are an outrageous government encroachment upon procedural due process and warrant requirements, and upon the traditional parameters of Full Faith and Credit, the right to travel, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The agreement here is not unheard of,? but precedent “directly on point” will be unlikely in any given circuit. The primary question, therefore, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage of the case, is whether Petitioners’ summary removal from one state (Colorado) to another (Kansas) violated clearly established rights to procedural due process, a warrant or a valid court order (rights which were also codified in Colorado’s Uniform ! See amici briefs in this Court’s Milling case, No. 17-8654. 2 See, e.g., Arkansas Dep’t of Human Serv v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806, 811, n. 1 (Ark. 2002) (not involving 42 U.S.C. § 1983). li QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act) and the right to familial association. The second question is whether an appellant is entitled, in its reply brief, to address the answer brief’s “alternative ground” for affirming the district court or, as stated by one court, does the circuit court have “discretion” not to consider the reply brief’s rebuttal argument. The third question is whether a portion of the conspiracy case against agents from two states was improperly transferred to the transferee forum, Kansas, when the original case could not have been brought there against all defendants. This third question is still pending on appeal in the Tenth Circuit. Under this Court’s Rule 11, the issue is of “imperative public importance” because, when government officials collude from two states to conduct wrongdoing in one state, litigation in two districts upon the same facts and witnesses not only doubles the burden on the federal court system, but may also result in conflicting outcomes.