Whether the empirical evidence of bias against, otherwise identically situated, pro se litigants in state courts proves the judicial intent to discriminate in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause requires fairness and equal treatment under the law. The practical application of this protection for pro se litigants has been a subject of scrutiny due to disparities in treatment and outcomes. Controlled studies with state civil court judges wherein only the presence of counsel varied (whereas other case-related factors were held constant), find that judges significantly devalue the case merits of pro se litigants relative to otherwise identical counseled litigants. The questions presented are as follows: Whether the empirical evidence of bias against, otherwise identically situated, pro se litigants in state courts proves the judicial intent to discriminate in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Whether refusal to give standard jury instructions central to a defendant’s case violates the Seventh Amendment Right to Trial by Jury and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Whether the California Tenant Protection Act that purportedly authorizes a landlord to terminate a lease agreement for “just cause” violates the Constitution’s Article I sec. 10—Contract Clause when applied to leases that were in place prior to the act taking effect.