Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that the First Amendment and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protect the unions' actions despite those actions violating Section 8(b)(4), and did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that the unions' long history of using environmental, land-use, and zoning laws to block developments is not serial sham petitioning?

are: 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that the First Amendment and the Noerr -Pennington doctrine protect the unions’ actions despite th ose actions violating Section 8(b)(4), a holding that is contrary to decisions of the Second, Third, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits ? 2. The Noerr -Pennington doctrine does not protect serial sham petitioning where a party asserts a series of challenges without regard for their merits and for an improper purpose. The Ninth Circuit held that the unions’ long history of using environmental, land -use, and zoning laws to block developments until developers agreed to labor agreements is not serial sham petitioning . Did the Ninth Circuit err in this holding, which conflicts with decisions of the Fourth, Second , and Seventh Circuits ? 3. Should this Court reject the holdings of the Ninth and First Circuits and instead agree with the Second, Fifth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit s that, under Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 559 U.S. 393 (2010) , the procedures authorized by state anti-SLAPP statutes do not apply in federal courts?