1. Given that "[o]ur Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines," Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 43 (2009) (per curiam), is it unconstitutional to execute a Gulf War veteran without considering the impact of new scientific evidence demonstrating that he possesses a diminished moral culpability due to a trifecta of mental and cognitive impairments caused by his combat service?

2. Must a death-sentenced individual, in order to avoid application of a procedural bar, advance a claim based on medical evidence that: (a) has yet to be generally accepted by the scientific community; and (b) contradicts previously accepted medical conclusions?

Is it unconstitutional to execute a Gulf War veteran without considering the impact of new scientific evidence demonstrating diminished moral culpability due to mental and cognitive impairments caused by combat service?