Whether a court may instruct a jury about potential legislative changes to sentencing law, and whether a federal habeas court can substitute its own reasoning for a state court's decision

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) ~=Whether, under Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), a court may, in the course of instructing the jury that a life sentence means life without parole, also instruct the jury that the Legislature may change that law and thus provide parole eligibility. (2) Whether, in light of Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. 122 (2018), when a state court has provided a reasoned opinion explaining its decision, a federal habeas court may substitute its own reasons justifying the state court’s decision, even where those reasons contradict the state court’s actual, specific reasoning. The federal circuit courts of appeals are divided on this question. ii