(1) whether wearing a hat identifying one as a "National Lawyers Guild legal observer" is protected speech under the First Amendment, or as the panel reasoned, unprotected (and subject to qualified immunity in any event) because it was not clearly "pro-protest"; (2) whether individuals possess a First Amendment right to unobtrusively observe and record police conduct from a distance, and if so whether such a right was clearly established at the time of the events that gave rise to this litigation; and (3) whether historical evidence requires this Court to overrule its precedents affording officers qualified immunity from Section 1983 suits in these circumstances.

Whether the First Amendment protects individuals from government retaliation for wearing identifying apparel as legal observers and for unobtrusively observing and recording police conduct, and whether such protections were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation for purposes of qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983