Whether qualified immunity applies to a state actor who violates the Free Exercise Clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether qualified immunity applies to a state actor who, despite multiple circuit court decisions directing him not to burden religious activities more than secular activities where the risks of COVID-19 transmission are comparable for both, continues to violate the Free Exercise Clause by burdening religious activities more than secular activities where the risks of COVID-19 transmission are comparable for both? 2. Whether this Court should overrule, or at least modify, its prior cases concerning the defense of qualified immunity, at least as applied to a state actor who has the benefit of forethought and premeditation, where the defense is contrary to the plain text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983? 3. Whether qualified immunity is an affirmative defense with the burden of proof on the party raising it, or whether a plaintiff has the burden of disproving the defense?