1. In Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), the Court held that a North Carolina statute prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media websites was unconstitutional. In so holding, the Court recognized that the First Amendment protected the right to access the internet for defendants who had completed their sentences. In the wake of Packingham, the lower courts have divided on whether that First Amendment right applies to defendants who have not yet completed their sentences and are subject to internet restrictions on supervision.

The first question presented is:

Whether the First Amendment right to access the internet recognized in Packingham applies to criminal defendants who are on supervised release.

2. In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), the Court held that, "folther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury." In Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 348, 360 (2012), the Court "hle]ld that the rule of Apprendi applies to the imposition of criminal fines."

The second question presented is:

Whether the Sixth Amendment prohibits a court from ordering criminal restitution based on facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the First Amendment right to access the internet recognized in Packingham applies to criminal defendants who are on supervised release