What sources of law constitute 'controlling authority' for the purposes of clearly establishing a right when analyzing Section 1983 qualified immunity?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case arises from a question this Court has repeatedly declined to answer over the last four decades: what sources of law constitute “controlling authority” for the purposes of clearly establishing a right when analyzing Section 1983 qualified immunity? Citing this Court’s most recent deferral on that issue in Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna,' the Sixth Circuit now holds that a single state supreme court case, which does not discuss the U.S. Constitution, can clearly establish a right under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit’s decision puts it in open conflict with six other Circuits on this issue, thus clarification is necessary. The specific questions presented by this petition are: 1. Did the Sixth Circuit depart from this Court’s prior decisions in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, (2011) and Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 617 (1999) by holding that a single state court case — which did not analyze any constitutional right and instead analyzing a repealed state statute — was controlling authority sufficient to clearly establish a right under the Fourteenth Amendment? 2. Did the Sixth Circuit depart from this Court’s prior decisions in ElderCoc v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514 (1994) and Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 377, (2007) by disallowing Petitioners to argue why caselaw submitted by Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to point 1 142 S.Ct. 4, 8 (2021). li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued to clearly established law, effectively shifting that burden to the Defendants? 3. Did the Sixth Circuit depart from this Court’s prior decision in Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1, 7 (2021) by failing to analyze the specific conduct of the named Defendants?