What does 28 U.S. Code § 2284 mandate regarding the composition of a district court when an action challenges the constitutionality of a federal law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED After petitioner invented a remarkable novel scientific method, found himself subjected to a purported agreement, rather than investment. While the ‘preliminary injunction’ route promises early access to Justice, the actual judicial process is an entirely separate and distinct experience. Petitioner faced a series of unreasonable demands from iCIMS Inc, and the prospect of ‘litigating' before private arbitration settings, under terms to which the petitioner had not consented, shielded by elements that contravene constitutional principles. Rather than resign himself to the unconstitutional injuries intentionally inflicted by iCIMS Inc, , petitioner filed suit in the district court _ seeking to restrain iCIMS Inc’s unconstitutional demands for arbitration. The lawsuit focused on the constitutional rights permitted within the United States Constitution, but the district court nonetheless dismissed it based on implications drawn from two unlawful agreements. The questions presented are: 1. What does 28 U.S. Code § 2284 mandate regarding the composition of a district @ Page 3 of 38 r court when an action challenges the constitutionality of a federal law? 2. Whether the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, as outlined in 9 U.S.C. § 2.3.4, violates the constitutional protections established in the Seventh and Ninth Amendments of the United States Bill of . Rights, particularly in civil rights cases. a. Whether this Court, in its capacity as the Supreme Court of the land, should redefine the contours of the Federal Arbitration Law to confine its immediate applicability to arbitration. b. Whether, in light of corporate entities deliberately misusing the ‘intent’ and ‘purpose’ underpinning the Federal Arbitration Act, this Court must categorically prohibit its invocation in the context of employment and consumer proceedings. @ Page 4 of 38 r