Whether SCOTUS decisions on Eleventh Amendment, Title VII, Title VI, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, standing, Texas Tort Claims Act, and academic freedom bar claims against state university

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether this Court’s decisions interpreting the Eleventh Amendment, see e.g. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer; Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, bar Title VII and other claims against UTHSCSA even when UTHSCSA explicitly and voluntarily invoked federal jurisdiction before being served 2. Whether Petitioner had provided sufficient factual pleadings of Title VI claim | when he met all Fifth Circuit’s requests to do so 3. Whether this Court’s decisions interpreting the Eleventh Amendment, see e.g. , Edelman v. Jordan; Ex parte Young, bar actions against state officials 4, Whether this Court’s decisions interpreting the First Amendment, see e.g. American Communications Assn. v. Douds; Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n; Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown,; Jones v. Opelika,; Tory v. Cochran, bar UTHSCSA from selectively subjecting academic scientist Petitioner to thought-probing in academic setting 5. Whether this Court’s decisions interpreting the First Amendment, see e.g. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 574 (1968); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146 (1983); Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 US 410, 425, 438 (2006), protect an academic employee’s speech, outside of performing his official duties, on research misconduct over an external event in international research community 6. Whether Petitioner has standing to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief when suffering ongoing violation of federal law and request damages and equity relief Questions Presented | 7. Whether Texas Tort Claim Act bar claims against individual employees for their retaliatory actions outside the scope of their employment 8. Whether this Court’s decisions interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, | including Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), permit the University of Texas , | Health Science Center at San Antonio’s denial of promotion of non-religiosity | ' employee and selective denial of an individual’s thoughts. | 9. Whether First Amendment Rights and freedom of movement are Petitioner’s liberty interest 10. Whether UTHSCSA’s counter-motion to stay discovery should be dismissed when it failed to make mandatory initial disclosure and being compelled to disclose | tii ,