I. In the Third Circuit, the Prison Litigation Reform Act has been applied to require
separate, duplicative fees from joined litigants. But the district court made a one-time
exception for the petitioner; because of this, the Court of Appeals dismissed. Can courts
strategically exempt litigants from the law to thwart test cases? or Can this Court review
ostensibly favorable ruling that actually injured the petitioner? an

II. The petitioner adhered to the PLRA and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. He
received leave to appeal in forma pauperis, though his coappellant did not. Did the
Third Circuit err by dismissing the appeal?

III. The fee provisions of the PLRA, as unanimously interpreted by this Court in 2016,
apply on a "per-case " basis. But policy concerns have led many lower courts to continue
imposing "per-litigant " fees. Does the PLRA demand separate, duplicative fees from
prisoners proceeding jointly?

IV. Neither prisoners nor indigents are suspect classes under an Equal Protection analy
sis, but there must be a rational basis for defining classes subject to legislation. Since the
PLRA already assures that all fees will he paid in full (thereby satisfying the statute 's
deterrence objective), does imposing excessive fees unduly burden incarcerated paupers
in violation of the Fifth Amendment?

Can courts strategically exempt litigants from the law to thwart test cases?