In 2017 Respondents executed a search warrant (which had no affidavit) at Petitioner's home. It authorized a search for violations of 26 U.S.C. §7201 (entire federal tax code), as well as 18 U.S.C. §371 (conspiracy to commit any offense against United States). The warrant named Petitioner, three other parties, as well as unspecified/unnamed New Mexico LLC's, other unnamed 'associated parties/companies', and unspecified publications based on their content. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Petitioner's Rives-type suit on grounds Respondents had qualified immunity based on the conclusion the warrant was not facially overbroad. It also held the normal post-seizure hearing requirement for seizure of publications due to their content was inapplicable because obscenity was not the subject matter of the targeted publications.

1. Is a search warrant that authorizes a search for violations of the entire federal tax code (26 U.S.C. §7201), plus any other numerous codes and laws for conspiring to commit any other offense against the United States (18 U.S.C. §371); along with unspecified 'associated parties', and unspecified, unidentified publications based solely on their content, so facially overbroad under the First and Fourth Amendment that qualified immunity should be denied?

2. When publications are targeted in a search warrant and seized due to their content, is the immediate hearing requirement under the First Amendment inapplicable just because the subject matter is not obscenity?

Is a search warrant that authorizes a search for violations of the entire federal tax code (26 U.S.C. §7201), plus any other numerous codes and laws for conspiring to commit any other offense against the United States (18 U.S.C. §371); along with unspecified 'associated parties', and unspecified, unidentified publications based solely on their content, so facially overbroad under the First and Fourth Amendment that qualified immunity should be denied?