Did Hall v. Florida announce a substantive rule of constitutional law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014), announce a substantive rule of constitutional law? 2. May a state court hold that a substantive rule of constitutional law is retroactively available, but at the same time also hold that a claim based on that rule is procedurally barred because it was not brought before the new substantive rule was announced? 3. Does the June 24, 2002, retroactivity cutoff line invented by the Florida Supreme Court, which denies collateral relief under Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), to more than one hundred death-sentenced Florida prisoners, while granting collateral Hurst relief to more than one hundred other Florida prisoners, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? 4, Does the formula employed for Hurst violations, which bars a substantive constitutional rule from being applied retroactively to half of Florida’s death row, violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016)? i