Whether federal courts can exercise jurisdiction through 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/or 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 “Constitutional shoals ” that led this Court in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971), to impose a "class-based animus" requirement under § 1985(3) have been removed by subsequent equal protection jurisprudence, particularly Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000), which expanded Fourteenth Amendment protections to include "Class of One" claims, requiring realignment of § 1985 ’s plain language with modem constitutional standards to protect “any person or class of persons 1