1. Whether the Tenth Circuit's unpublished reversal—requiring federal courts to conduct mandatory Sprint analysis before invoking Younger abstention—underscores entrenched circuit conflicts that only this Court can resolve to ensure uniform application of abstention doctrine and preserve federal access for constitutional claimants in domestic-relations and protection-order contexts.

2. Whether a federal court may constitutionally alter a litigant's pleadings by inserting language the party never wrote to fabricate and thereby manufacture abstention grounds, and whether such falsification constitutes fraud upon the court rendering ensuing proceedings void as ultra vires acts beyond Article III authority.

3. Whether Article III judges are categorically exempt from the mandatory criminal-reporting duty imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 4, or whether the statute's plain text—applying to "whoever" without exception—requires judges to report known federal felonies, presenting an unresolved question at the intersection of judicial independence and Congress's authority to impose applicable reporting obligations.

4. Whether federal judges must recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) when they are subjects of congressional whistleblower investigations or impeachment inquiries arising from the very conduct at issue in pending litigation before them.

5. Whether a State Attorney General may lawfully represent individual capacity defendants in § 1983 actions arising from ultra vires or unconstitutional acts committed in the absence of jurisdiction, where such representation creates irreconcilable conflicts between the State's institutional interests and the personal liability of its officials, depriving plaintiffs of a neutral and conflict-free forum.

Whether the Tenth Circuit's unpublished reversal requires mandatory Sprint analysis before Younger abstention and resolves circuit conflicts regarding federal access for constitutional claimants