Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over a state law claim that requires resolving a conflict between state law and a federal consent decree

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Pursuant to this Court’s decisions in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005) and Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2018), do the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a state law claim that “inevitably” requires the resolution of a direct conflict between state law and a federal consent decree? 2. Where a local government is mandated by state law to comply with the terms of its charter, as amended by the voters pursuant to their state constitutional right to order their municipal affairs, is compliance excused by conflicting terms of a settlement agreement between the local government and a private litigant, where that settlement agreement is entered as a federal district court order? 3. Are the terms of a local government charter, endowed by the state constitution as having “the force and effect of [state] legislative enactments,” superseded by a settlement agreement between the local government and a private litigant, where that settlement agreement is entered as a federal district court order, and there has been no adjudication of the private litigants’ claims? 4. May a federal court suspend operation of a local government charter, in furtherance of implementing a settlement agreement between the local government entity and private litigants, where there has been no adjudication of the private litigants’ claims?