Whether the First Amendment's prohibition on congressional lawmaking limits judicial interpretation of religious doctrine and tort claims, and whether courts must fairly adjudicate claims with equal justice

1) Does the text of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law”, limit its application to the Legislature and, thus, allow the Judiciary to craft laws favoring certain religious parties, while punishing those who refuse to submit to the religious doctrines they did not freely accept? 2) Did the Ohio courts err when they elected to modify law established by multiple Supreme Court practices, and precedents, violating the well established principle that only the Supreme Court may modify its own rulings? 3) Does the First Amendment require courts dismiss a “non-Catholic’s” secular tort and contract law claims — because they include statements which were presented, by the crafters, as true representations of Catholic Doctrine — when courts routinely rely on selfauthenticating evidence of this type, if offered by a “Catholic” party? 4) Does the Constitution’s provision, allowing for injured parties to petition the government for redress, include an implicit expectation that requires the courts to fairly adjudicate the claims and faithfully apply State procedural and substantive law, ensuring “Equal — Justice Under — Law”? i PARTIES TO PROCEEDING AND RELATED CASES Dale Prey v. Franciscan University of Steubenville, et al., Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Ohio; Case No.: 22-CV-145 (18 Jan. 2024) Dale Prey v. Franciscan University of Steubenville, et al., Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh Appellate District; Case No. 24 JE 0004(13 Aug. 2024); Application for Reconsideration: (03 Oct. 2024) (Overruled) Dale Prey v. Franciscan University of Steubenville, et al., The Supreme Court of Ohio; Case No. 20241599: (28 Jan 2025 / 14 Feb. 2025) (Jurisdiction Declined) ii