Does the Ninth Circuit's application of res judicata conflict with Supreme Court precedent and create a circuit split regarding post-judgment facts in RICO claims?

1. Does the Ninth Circuit’s application of res judicata, barring claims based on new material facts arising after prior judgments, conflict with this Court’s precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt , 579 U.S. 582 (2016) , and create a circuit split with the Fifth and Seventh Circuits on whether post -judgment facts permit new RICO claims, particularly in the context of ongoing social media censorship affecting electoral fairness? 2. Does the Ninth Circuit’s broad application of Section 230 immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230 to alleged coordinated censorship by social media platforms conflict with district court precedent in Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC , 2022 WL 17342198 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2022) , and raise significant public policy concerns about immunizing platforms engaged in unlawful conspiracies influenced by government and corporate actors? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit misapply this Court’s precedent in Boyle v. United States , 556 U.S. 938 (2009) , by imposing an overly restrictive standard for pleading a RICO enterprise and disregarding new evidence of coordinated censorship, undermining RICO’s role in addressing conspiracies that threaten democratic pro cesses?