Whether federal courts must exercise jurisdiction despite Domestic Relations or Younger abstention when state remedies are inadequate and parallel litigation lacks remedies

1. Whether the Federal Court ’s “virtually unflagging obligation ” to exercise jurisdiction prohibits Domestic Relations or Younger abstention when: A. State remedies for the civil claims in the federal suit are inadequate; B. Allegedly parallel litigation lacks remedies for the same claims raised; and C. Federal abstention would prejudice the rights of the plaintiff. 2. Whether private discretion becomes state action under § 1983 when a state creates a hierarchy that delegates power to a private party, allowing that party to act as the gatekeeper of another ’s constitutional rights, and state power enforces the private discretion to sever those rights without due process of law. 3. Whether the “Class of One” protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, as established in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000), extends to § 1985 claims, unifying the statutory language “person or class of persons ” with evolving equal protection jurisprudence and rejecting the requirement for "classbased animus" when the plain language protects "a person" or "class of persons." 4. Whether medical providers have third-party liability to parents when their actions interfere with the parent ’s constitutional rights to direct their child ’s medical care or when tortious conduct during medical treatment harms the child and injures the parent directly or indirectly, and whether such actions are actionable.