Whether non-adherence to Turner procedural protections violates substantive-due-process-and-privileges-and-immunities,takings-clause,due-process-and-equal-protection,equitable-relief

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; After this Court decided Turner v. Rogers, 564 U. S. 431 (2011), many state courts adjusted contempt proceedings in child support cases under Title IV, Part D, of the Social a Security Act. In December 2016, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, which funds programs under that same Part, promulgated revised regulations that implemented due process safeguards, based upon the three-prong test from Mathews v. Eldridge, 429 U. S. 319 (1976), as discussed in Turner v. Rogers. States likewise revised corresponding regulations for their courts and tribunals. The federal legislative branch also made changes such as an expression of a “Sense of the Congress regarding offering of voluntary parenting time arrangements,” by enacting the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, in September 2014, and expansion of “529 Account Funding for Elementary and Secondary Education,” within the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ; in December 2017. The questions presented herein are as follows: Whether non—adherence to Turner procedural protections, under 45 CFR § 303.6(c)(4-5), violates substantive due process as well as privileges and immunities when fundamental rights and liberties are implicated, affronts the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, from which equitable relief is available, as found by Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Nevada as well as the First, Third, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, or is instead moot, as found in Ohio and Texas. Whether a dignity factor, scrutiny under substantive due process, or with privileges and immunities, as well as by specific Amendments may supplant the Mathews factors and Turner procedural protections in proceedings under , Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act when fundamental rights and liberties are at stake. Does lack of perfection of service divest a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, for “any matters,” after confirmation of the registration of an order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.