Whether the federal courts retain discretion to deny consideration of relevant facts, evidence, and legal issues when reviewing the anonymity and confidentiality of government whistleblowers, confidential sources, and informants

Question Presented Background and Context Pursuant to the plenary powers of Congress, embodied in the ‘Spending and Property Clauses’ of the United States Constitution, Congress has authorized knowledgeable insiders, who assist the law enforcement efforts of the US Federal Government, to seek an impartial judicial review of their respective submissions. Variously and confusingly referred to in US Federal legislation and regulations as (1) “whistleblowers” (2) “confidential sources” and (3) “informants”. Including, overseas informants and whistleblowers who assist the IRS Criminal Division of the US Treasury Department and exercise their statutory rights to an impartial judicial review of their continuing anonymity and confidentiality, together with, their award determinations made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service pursuant to 26 U.S. Code § 7623(b)(4). Based on evidentiary disclosure of offshore (1) money laundering, (2) unreported bank accounts, and (3) unreported income, activities which undermine the integrity of the US Treasury Department. Accordingly, the question presented to the US Supreme Court in this matter is: Whether, contrary to the US Supreme Court’s clear affirmation of the ‘strict plausibility’ pleading standard, the US Federal Courts nevertheless retain a general discretion in refusing to consider, discuss or acknowledge, without an opinion, rationale or dicta, all the relevant facts, ; supporting evidence, statutes, US Treasury regulations having the force of law and salient Constitutional issues; when denying the continuing anonymity and confidentiality of overseas US Government (1) “whistleblowers” (2) “confidential sources” and (3) “informants”, during judicial review in the US Federal Courts, pursuant to the ‘open courts doctrine’. (2]