1) Because His Case resettle. onimpotaal guedtion 03 Lau) andéhe porharak night. og he peonle "summary dismissal ixtheloae.og paliZirnerk., serious gllegélions. would aphearLe Be cut. o3 Line. cth prior decisions og this tori ?

2) Aeticteonon was denied a gundamarital pus pores 14 2 trala Lo le tte Court S the. Cov. eee 16 Ore eg indippiiad, Latls praseples Arte. Sthe Couvil procoading? "

3) Zuhethen: all Amendment precludebthe CovitLand puny grom regecting uneoilweveiled Leslimeny hil is rst. improbable in Lsole, rte disregard mdlerial eacks thal are indiapttahly nb ablished bylhe pL: Ted Zo ; g 08 Both the Prods 3 and Zhe. Jape dant twto Goth Co gine Lhe bose. ralenial fail Jo betwe Seyordadov? "

4) gutter? Ltt 4s a pure quetlion og Law dubgodt Lo Konia Anche. Jniled Sates Supreme Covi trhonthe only reahenable dispute is cverthe, Legal p1geet Nand Aucemighoance og unclipuiled pacts? —__|

5) cohen? 4hu2 thal the verdict 6 onawsul ape Cortduany Lethe. conginmad, unterlebled pois oe heared 2b Sevicienl porgormance and Auld Lnogeective assiftenteoe Courbe ta okehion 09 Appellate. ue Procass Riabls.?

Consenting adults. have a conbiltional right As aregage in UnresLigled seyualcondrd! ect aah then andthe settheinoumn bourdriak and telermina whdl Ls parmisgible iphaie gerteonal xelilionthing. 2?

2) whether: Shale Cowils délermindlionog the gaitsoglhis. rhe wed ob eclivel, pvessonabla?

Whether the state courts' determination of the facts of this case was objectively reasonable?