Should the Supreme Court require the Eleventh Circuit to follow Supreme Court precedent and resolve challenges to Article III standing before resolving other issues such as sovereign or qualified immunity?

question presented is: Should the Supreme Court require the Eleventh Circuit to follow Supreme Court precedent and resolve challenges to Article III standing before resolving other issues such as sovereign or qualified immunity? (2) This Court has held that, to determine whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest, courts should examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide whether the totality of the circumstances, including relevant historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable officer, amount to probable cause. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 US. 366, 371 (2003) (quoting Ornelas v. U.S., 517 US. 690, 696 (1996)). Probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity. Illinois v. Gates, 462 US. 218, 243-244 n. 13 (1983). Probable cause is not a high bar. Kaley v. US., 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014). ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED RULE 14.1.(a) — Continued District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 586 (2018). The question presented is: Did the Circuit Court properly evaluate the existence of probable cause or arguable probable cause that a criminal statute had been violated when the Circuit Court added additional elements to the criminal statute and failed to properly evaluate the totality of the circumstances?