Can courts strategically exempt litigants from the law to thwart test cases?

Questions Presented I. Inthe Third Circuit, the Prison Litigation Reform Act has been applied to require separate, duplicative fees from joined litigants. But the district court made a one-time exception for the petitioner; because of this, the Court of Appeals dismissed. Can courts . strategically exempt litigants from the law to thwart test cases? or Can this Court review an ostensibly favorable ruling that actually injured the petitioner? II. The petitioner adhered to the PLRA and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. He received leave to appeal in forma pauperis, though his coappellant did not. Did the Third Circuit err by dismissing the appeal? III. The fee provisions of the PLRA, as unanimously interpreted by this Court in 2016, apply on a “per-case” basis. But policy concerns have led many lower courts to continue imposing “per-litigant” fees. Does the PLRA demand separate, duplicative fees from ; prisoners proceeding jointly? IV. Neither prisoners nor indigents are suspect classes under an Equal Protection analysis, but there must be a rational basis for defining classes subject to legislation. Since the PLRA already assures that all fees will be paid in full (thereby satisfying the statute’s deterrence objective), does imposing excessive fees unduly burden incarcerated paupers in violation of the Fifth Amendment? n ‘ . . Parties "This case originated as a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of all current and future death-sentenced prisoners in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The representative plaintiffs are Anthony Reid, Ronald Gibson, Mark Newton Spotz, Jermont Cox, and Ricardo Natividad. , The class is represented by attorneys Bret Grote of the Abolitionist Law Center; Witold J. Walczak of the ACLU of PA; Susan M. Lin, Mark D. Taticchi & Wilson M. Brown of separate private law firms; and David Fathi & Amy Fettig of the ACLU's National Prison Project. . . . The defendants are John E. Wetzel, Secretary of the PA Department of Correct| ions; and K. Jaime Sorber, Superintendent of State Correctional Institution Phoenix (where all class members are housed). They are sued in their official capacities and are represented by the Department's internal Office of Chief Counsel. About 65 to 70 class members—a majority—emerged as express objectors to the settlement agreement reached by the above parties. Objectors' names are recorded on ; the docket at #18-CV-0176. The Hon. Chief Judge John E. Jones, III, presided. Objectors Richard A. Poplawski and H. Miguel Robinson filed a joint appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. . Poplawski is the petitioner. '