1 Whether a two-judge appellate panel violates 28 U. S.C. § 46(b)'s mandate that panels "consist of three
judges," rendering decisions void under Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69 (2003), whether Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 40 is violated when the same two-judge panel whose order is challenged
decides the en banc petition without submission to all active circuit judges, and whether appellate courts
violate the Fifth Amendment when characterizing a district court order as containing findings that do not
exist in the actual order.

2. Whether an arrest warrant setting bail at $10,000 for a Class B misdemeanor, when Utah's legislature
established $680-$700 as the appropriate amount across multiple statutes, violates the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition on excessive bail, what standard applies to excessive bail claims in federal
habeas proceedings, and whether federal habeas courts may dismiss such claims without analysis.

3. Whether parents advocating for federally-guaranteed disability education rights are protected from
criminal prosecution coordinated by schools and municipalities with whom the parent had no direct
contact, under the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and whether A.J.T. v.
Osseo Area Schools, 145 S. Ct. 1647 (2025), prohibiting schools from denying accommodations for
administrative convenience, applies when a parent's federally-validated advocacy results in criminal
prosecution coordinated by the school itself.

4. Whether Younger v. Hams abstention applies when state courts have systematically refused to address
constitutional claims, including refusing to file motions, refusing to analyze Eighth Amendment
violations, and refusing to provide counsel, rendering state remedies functionally unavailable, and
whether federal courts must analyze Younger's established exceptions before dismissing habeas
petitions.

5. Whether systematic state patterns of suppressing federal education law enforcement, through
coordinated action by courts, prosecutors, police, defense counsel, and legislators, including fabrication
of evidence against children documented in sworn testimony, require federal intervention to protect
IDEA rights.

Question not identified.