Whether the District Court violated Rule 5.1 and due process by dismissing a constitutional challenge without notifying the state attorney general or certifying the issue

1. Whether the District Court violated Rule 5.1 and due process by dismissing a constitutional challenge to Local Rule 26.1 without notifying the state attorney general or certifying the issue, as required. 2. Whether application of the Administrative Procedure Act to a common-law civil matter, absent consent, infringes Petitioner’s Article III and due process rights under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions. 3. Whether the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania may lawfully dismiss my claim without affording me a trial by a jury of my peers, as guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, is a serious question of constitutional due process. 4. Whether, after this Court’s decision in Loper Bright, courts may continue deferring to agencyor court-created procedural rules that impair substantive constitutional rights. II “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). In line with this foundational principle, the United States Supreme Court has reaffirmed its constitutional role in interpreting the law by overturning the Chevron doctrine. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219, the Court limited the deference courts must give to executive agencies, holding that courts must independently determine the meaning of statutes rather than deferring to agency interpretations. . a