Whether statutory provisions for removal of a state court case to federal court authorize judicial review, where the removal proceeding is an alleged sham SLAPP suit brought allegedly in violation of civil-rights, and the removing party is a covered micro-entity inventor under patent-office laws claiming quiet-title relief on a purchase-money lien claim for patent-franchise purposes

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Court said “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” Before the Court is a novel Progress Clause controversy and civil rights case . that presents several nationally significant issues about terms for implementing the new doctrine, and : other recent rulings on judicial review, rules against advisory opinions, and online speech policy. Two important questions inquire into the nexus between the intervening decisions, the constitutionally enumerated right to invent, and the public interest in transformative innovation: 1. Whether statutory provisions for removal of a state court case to federal court in 28 USC 1443 and 1454 authorize judicial review, where the removal proceeding is an alleged sham SLAPP suit brought allegedly in violation of 42 USC 1985(a), and the removing party is a covered micro entity inventor under patent office laws in 35 USC 123 whose goal is quiet title relief on a purchase money lien claim for patent franchise purposes? 2. Whether under 28 USC 1295(a), the Federal Circuit erred by applying Progress Clause exceptions from judicial review where the removing party is an inventor under patent office regulation claiming that his invention promotes transformative innovation in a specified field? 7