1. Is Respondents' enforcement program of investigating, prosecuting, and
sanctioning Washington physicians for their public speech on COVID-19
patently unconstitutional, either as a matter of law or because it fails
strict scrutiny on the preliminary injunction record?

2. Given the nationwide scope of efforts to discipline physicians for protected
speech, and the impact of such efforts on the public's right to hear
divergent viewpoints, should this Court intervene before the Ninth Circuit
renders a decision to provide urgently needed constitutional guidance?

3. Should this Court convert this application into a petition for certiorari to
provide a definitive nationwide ruling on whether physicians' public
speech is fully protected by the First Amendment, and requires the
government to meet its strict scrutiny burden?

4. Do threshold issues such as standing, prudential ripeness, or Younger
abstention preclude this Court from issuing an injunction, even though
this case demonstrates that there is an ongoing nationwide campaign to
censor dissenting speech? (Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 48-49 (1971).)

Whether the First Amendment protects physicians' public speech on COVID-19 from government investigation and potential disciplinary action under strict scrutiny