1) when a plaintiff alleges that he or She was denied a valuable governmental
benefit based on his or her beliefs and thoughts and that the receipt of
that benefit is conditioned on adopting, internalizing, and voicing government
approved ones , is he or she also required to additionally allege and prove that
suppression of speech is a motivating factor of the government to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted under the First Amendment,?

2) When the aim of a governmental practice is to inhibit and coerce belief and
thought, is not that the same as an aim to suppress speech?

3) Is a Turner v. safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) test, as is, appropriate for a
challenge of parole suitability determination regulations where the regulations
used to penalize, inhibit, and coerce parole candidate beliefs and thoughts; are
where day-to-day operation of a prison are not involved; and where there are
no institutional safety and security concerns?

4) Was an adverse ruling using the Turner test premature in this case before
plaintiff had an opportunity to fully develop the record and were the first and
second parts of the test correctly used?

5) Are parole suitability determination regulations allowed to be challenged
facially under the Due Process Clause?

6) is thf Turner test appropriate for a facial challenge of regulations under
the Due Process Clause?

7) Did the appellate court error by not permitting an opening Brief to be
filed on the ground that the questions raised were "too insubstantial"?

When a plaintiff alleges denial of a governmental benefit based on beliefs/thoughts and the benefit is conditioned on adopting government-approved beliefs/thoughts, is he/she required to allege and prove suppression of speech is a motivating factor to state a First Amendment claim?