1. Whether a State violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it mandates that capital litigants have counsel during their state postconviction proceedings, yet precludes them from accessing the state created habeas process with their pro bono counsel of choice?

2. Whether a system that functionally prevents a litigant from presenting claims to the courts with choice of counsel satisfies the right to due process and access to the courts?

3. Whether a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it precludes indigent capital litigants under a death warrant from proceeding with their qualified pro bono counsel of choice, where no prejudice to the State or administration of justice would occur and a non indigent litigant would be entitled to such a choice?

4. Whether a court may justify denying relief by sua sponte raising the Rooker Feldman doctrine, which was found to "probably" apply, to avoid addressing the merits of a § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of a state's capital postconviction process governed by statutes and procedural rules?

Whether a State violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses by preventing capital litigants from accessing state habeas process with pro bono counsel of choice