1. Whether, in cases charged and tried to a jury before this Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), courts of appeals may affirm a defendant's conviction by relying on facts about the defendant's prior convictions that were not proven to the jury at trial—an issue that divides the circuits.

2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause power facially and as applied to the local possession of a firearm, where the only connection to interstate commerce occurred before the defendant possessed the firearm—here, when the firearm crossed state lines before Petitioner was even born.

3. Whether a federal court may increase a defendant's sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) by relying on its own finding about non-elemental facts, taken from the charging documents alone, to conclude a defendant's prior offenses were "committed on occasions different from one another."

4. Whether the ACCA's definition of a "serious drug offense" requires knowledge of the substance's illicit nature, an issue left undecided in Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779, 787 n.3 (2020).

Whether courts of appeals may affirm a defendant's conviction by relying on facts about the defendant's prior convictions that were not proven to the jury at trial