Whether a forum and scrutiny analysis are required when considering First Amendment infringement claims involving the government barring citizen speech on publicly owned property?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . 1. Whether a forum and scrutiny analysis are required when considering First Amendment _ infringement claims involving the government barring citizen speech on publicly owned property? 2. Whether blanket prohibitions on future speech by speakers within the internal class for limited or designated public forums must be narrowly tailored to restrain no more speech than is necessary per Madsen vs. Women’s Health Ctr., 512 US 753 (1994)? 3. Whether the government’s prohibition of “personal attacks” while allowing personal compliments within a limited public forum is viewpoint neutral? 4. Whether government’s prohibition of “discriminatory” speech against groups on its social media pages, when used as limited public forums, is viewpoint neutral? 5. Whether pre-deprivation due process is required for First Amendment speech infringements in limited public forums when a speaker presents no immediate risk of disruption under Zinermon v Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990)? 6. Whether a plaintiff has the right of return to litigate Constitutional claims in federal court, via an England reservation, under a stay pending the . conclusion of state litigation filed before the initiation of the federal lawsuit? iT] 7. Does the Supremacy Clause allow state law, involving reports to child protective services in the present litigation, to modify the standard for First Amendment Retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983? 8. Whether a plaintiff in a First Amendment Retaliation claim can overcome government officials’ denial by providing extensive direct and circumstantial evidence of retaliation that must be considered by a court when dismissing claims on summary judgment? |