Whether the claims of an Officer of the Court with the New Jersey Judiciary System are barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the Officer of the Court's claims allege that the New Jersey Judiciary System violated his constitutional right to due process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Third Circuit affirmed the New Jersey District Court’s decision that dismissed the Petitioner Kevin Tung, Esq.’s violation of the constitutional due process claims against the Superior Court of New Jersey and its administrators in their official duties or capacities in charge of managing and supervising of the administration of the Superior Court of New Jersey on the grounds that (1) sovereign immunity shields the defendants and (2) Ea parte Young’s exception do not : apply to the instant case. Four questions are presented: 1. Whether the claims of an Officer of the Court with the New Jersey Judiciary System are barred . by the Eleventh Amendment when the Officer of the Court’s claims allege that the New Jersey ‘Judiciary System violated his constitutional right to due process. 2. Whether Petitioner seeks the type of forward-looking relief under Bowers v. NCAA that would make the exception in Ex parte Young applicable to the case at hand when the relief sought by the Petitioner requests that the administrators of the New Jersey Judiciary System implement pertinent ’ procedural due process procedures required by federal law to protect Officers of the Court like the Petitioner and other similarly situated attorneys from being maliciously prosecuted as a result of fraud upon the court when the attorney is not a party to the action and is not given an opportunity to defend himself. . ua 3. Whether the ongoing investigation and prosecution by the Office of Attorney Ethics into the Petitioner’s alleged misconducts constitutes an ongoing violation-of federal law rather than an ongoing effect, thereby making the Ex parte Young: exception : applicable to the instant case, when said‘ Office of . Attorney Ethics investigation and prosecution resulted ' from the Superior Court of New Jersey’s violation of the Petitioner’s constitutional right to due process. 4. Whether New Jersey . Judiciary’s treatment of its officers of the court violated the equal protection clause of the constitution when minority : ‘ attorneys are presumed dishonest and no due process is afforded to protect them, while attorneys deeply connected with the judiciary systems can walk away with no punishment after openly admitting to | committing fraud upon the court, which had caused the minority attorney to suffer harms relating to his good name, professional reputation, honor, or integrity in his legal profession.