Whether the court of appeals erred in denying a motion to dismiss a civil-rights, due-process, free-speech claim

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Id He extitene ly rare LR62L vere a feel Len? f: Appeals’ Betis) 1 attugse fp ad pien80i, (Spe echatually 4th bed. Liab COW wepeq wisthiracte’)zla prd hswnsstd 45 4 Dtcoad ov Biecengi ve fe! prbtes boryus pethed Oy 4 far hetricd LOH 1 torte 4° ihe Hats Aeats24) coos D Did the cred judge of He Fypeh Lire err b Boing 4 mobo pp CEG a: SACHon a popbdy afore He Lod A pshly anyrys G £0. A, D tas te Sayre Lose of the rbd States, revexsea) rode GEL S101 iA MWe bly grow V, Soh ad F 123 &. C4, 92+) ana Sohhig V. Deh, 15 ALA. E5) eure here Mas Loud decdled, 1S oflirrd only oo He 9001805 Chie 40 be s91oconf of 4 Crime of! which t/ 249 Coneteu LS) hie Hs Ait TC Lhesipexhon, 13 vod rteeif! 4 Lonstdy doa Llyn, anid MbtAA, 15 4 Batecs roga ich php A2cu8 ta aug YS thle Gi; Mooue atred Lopekdrpo2e/ Chimes banswlcre on fhe ruerdg., ¥ Laks 1578 Lf. 758 (2019)! Were V. Tisler. 13.3 &. Ch 411 (2013) and Marbae. V. Byarg Ship YS, | C2012), D Does He Suygrene Lourf 1 Unted Siok V. Fy, 45% Weg. /52, Vid late Phe eguia| fete of! Jaws eve