Whether the relationships in 18 USC §921(a)(33)(A) defining misdemeanor crime of domestic violence serve jurisdictional and substantive purposes under controlling Court decisions, and whether the Ninth Circuit violated subject matter jurisdiction rules

1: Whether the relationships listed in 18 USC §921(a)(33)(A) defining misdemeanor crime of domestic violence serve both jurisdictional and substantive purposes under controlling decisions of this Court, considering Congress ’s passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA); and whether the Ninth Circuit acted in violation of this Court ’s rule in Steel Company v.Citizens For A Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998), which requires federal courts to address any issue of subject matter jurisdiction before determining any issue on the merits. Question 2: Whether this Court ’s decision in United States v Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009), forbids pretrial application of the categorical approach, the approach or Double Jeopardy Clause issue preclusion rules where the state domestic assault statute lists relationship elements, but that list is broader than the relationships listed in the federal law. Question 3: Should the government be estopped from continuing with this prosecution on judicial estoppel/due process grounds since before trial the government i) cleared petitioner to possess firearms on five occasions; and ii) adopted the position that petitioner ’s 2013 PFMA conviction was based on a “dating ” relationship in a proposed plea agreement? Positions inconsistent with its trial theory that the PFMA conviction was supported by a spousal type relationship, ii