(1) This Court and several Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that federal courts should not reach the merits of a case, including issues such as sovereign or qualified immunity, without first determining whether a "case or controversy" exists under Article III. Steel v. Citizens, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998); Webb v. Dallas, 314 F.3d 787, 790-791 (5th Cir. 2002); Price v. Akaka, 3 F.3d 1220, 1223-1224 (9th Cir. 1993). The question presented is: Should the Supreme Court require the Eleventh Circuit to follow Supreme Court precedent and resolve challenges to Article III standing before resolving other issues such as sovereign or qualified immunity?

(2) This Court has held that, to determine whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest, courts should examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide whether the totality of the circumstances, including relevant historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable officer, amount to probable cause. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003) (quoting Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996)). Probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 243-244 n. 13 (1983). Probable cause is not a high bar. Kaley v. U.S., 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014). District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 586 (2018). The question presented is: Did the Circuit Court properly evaluate the existence of probable cause or arguable probable cause that a criminal statute had been violated when the Circuit Court added additional elements to the criminal statute and failed to properly evaluate the totality of the circumstances?

Should the Supreme Court require the Eleventh Circuit to follow Supreme Court precedent and resolve challenges to Article III standing before resolving other issues such as sovereign or qualified immunity?