Should the Court require Government-imposed restrictions on the 809-year-old personal right to occupational liberty, long-recognized by this Court as protected by the Constitution, be supported with credible evidence submitted by the Government, instead of justified by judges with speculation, unsupported by any evidence?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should the Court require Government-imposed restrictions on the 809-year-old personal right to occupational liberty, long-recognized by this Court as protected by the Constitution, be supported with credible evidence submitted by the Government, instead of justified by judges with speculation, unsupported by any evidence? 2. Are the First and Ninth Circuits correct that Burford v_Sun Oil Co. 319 US 315 (1943) allows courts to abstain from lawsuits demanding damages, even civil rights lawsuits filed under 42 USC § 1983, or are the Third, Fourth and maybe Second correct that it does not? Are the Third and Fourth Circuits correct that Burford should never apply to First Amendment claims, or is the First Circuit correct that it does? 3. Does this Court's intermediate scrutiny standard of judicial review for Government restrictions on First Amendment rights allow courts to speculate the restrictions are justified--instead of requiring proof they're justified and at least somewhat tailored? 4. Can a district court dismiss a lawsuit on the merits without a proper motion to dismiss on the merits by a defendant or court notice? i w eo