Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a state appellate court resolves federal constitutional claims through an unexplained summary affirmance, effectively foreclosing meaningful federal review

This case raises key issues about the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the scope of attorney immunity doctrines. This Court has recognized that due process requires procedures adequate to ensure meaningful appellate review where constitutional rights are implicated; however, unexplained summary affirmances provide no indication that federal claims were considered or adjudicated. This Court has also held that immunity doctrines are functional and do not extend to intentional or criminal misconduct, particularly where private actors act jointly or where conduct interferes with federally protected rights. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE: 1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a state appellate court resolves federal constitutional claims through an unexplained summary affirmance, effectively foreclosing meaningful federal review and allowing the lower court ’s reasoning to escape any scrutiny. 2. Whether a state court violates federal constitutional limits by applying attorney immunity doctrines to bar civil liability for alleged fraudulent or criminal conduct by attorneys, including coordinated conduct by multiple attorneys, when that conduct is alleged to have interfered with property rights and judicial proceedings protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. i