1. Whether failing to consider a public figure classification under Gertz and its progeny improperly lowers this Court's standard for defamation and violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

2. Whether a public website referring to an attorney's pleadings as 'vexatious' or "meritless" necessarily constitutes 'libel' in the statutory context as an explicit "legal term of art", or whether it is considered public discourse and protected First Amendment expression of opinion, given the ordinary reader.

3. Whether a state court's application of res judicata to deem an appeal as moot based on another defendant's appeal violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ultimate question presented is whether this Court should uphold and refine, or reverse the "actual malice" requirement it imposed on public figure defamation plaintiffs under Gertz and its progeny, and whether it will clarify standards relevant to the modern Internet era.

Whether a state court's application of res judicata to deem an appeal moot based on another defendant's appeal violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and whether the Court should refine the 'actual malice' standard for public figure defamation