Whether the Court of Appeals erred in severance of retrospective damages claims from prospective injunctive claims under Ex parte Young and whether systemic judicial bias in attorney discipline proceedings violates Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred by failing to sever retrospective claims for damages from prospective injunctive claims under Ex parte Young, contrary to longestablished severance doctrine recognized in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), and its progeny. 2. Whether systemic judicial bias and misconduct in New York ’s attorney discipline proceedings in the Appellate Division, Second Department —including the selective prosecution of Black civil rights lawyers — violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 3. Whether the increasing weaponization of the judicial system against political and civil rights opponents —including the disparate treatment in highprofile prosecutions and selective attorney discipline — raises issues of national importance requiring this Court ’s intervention to preserve public confidence in the impartial administration of justice. 4. Whether the Second Circuit ’s refusal to sever viable claims for prospective injunctive relief from claims for retrospective damages conflicts with this Court ’s precedent in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), and contributes to a circuit split that threatens the availability of forward-looking constitutional remedies in civil rights litigation. 5. Whether the lower courts violated due process by invoking procedural doctrines to avoid adjudicating petitioner ’s core constitutional claims for prospective relief, in conflict with Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005), which requires meaningful process before the government may curtail protected liberty interests.