1. Whether qualified immunity applies to a state
actor who, despite multiple circuit court decisions
directing him not to burden religious activities more
than secular activities where the risks of COVID-19
transmission are comparable for both, continues to
violate the Free Exercise Clause by burdening religious
activities more than secular activities where the risks
of COVID-19 transmission are comparable for both?

2. Whether this Court should overrule, or at least
modify, its prior cases concerning the defense of
qualified immunity, at least as applied to a state actor
who has the benefit of forethought and premeditation,
where the defense is contrary to the plain text of 42
U.S.C. § 1983?

3. Whether qualified immunity is an affirmative
defense with the burden of proof on the party raising it,
or whether a plaintiff has the burden of disproving the
defense?

Whether qualified immunity applies to a state actor who violates the Free Exercise Clause