Whether a federal appellate court may deem constitutional arguments waived when a pro se appellant raised the substance of those arguments but did not use precise legal terminology; whether the Ex parte Young doctrine allows prospective relief against state judicial officers for constitutional violations; whether judicial immunity extends to ministerial and administrative acts violating First Amendment access rights

1. Whether a federal appellate court may deem constitutional arguments waived when a pro se appellant, entitled to liberal construction under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), raised the substance of those arguments, Ex parte Young doctrine, but did not use the precise legal terminology (“sovereign immunity,” “Eleventh Amendment,” or “judicial immunity”) in his opening brief. 2. Whether the Ex parte Young doctrine, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), allows a pro se litigant to pursue prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against state judicial officers engaged in ongoing constitutional violations, notwithstanding Eleventh Amendment immunity. 3. Whether judicial immunity extends to ministerial and administrative acts, such as excluding members of the public from open judicial proceedings, that violate the First Amendment right of access.