1. Did the Eleventh Circuit violate Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b) by issuing a mandate while rehearing en banc was pending, and whether reinstating a vacated panel opinion without briefing decision violates due process Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, especially when those procedures impact access to appellate correction of substantial federal and constitutional errors?

2. Should a fraud-on-the-court exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, recognized in other circuits, apply when state election officials alter material verification documents in an election-access dispute?

3. Does the Eleventh Circuit's practice relating to reinstatement of previously vacated opinions, or denial of meaningful rehearing, contravenes longstanding Supreme Court precedent on vacatur of moot judgments, notably the Munsingwear doctrine, and raises questions of constitutional mootness and procedural fairness?

4. Do Georgia's ballot access provisions (O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-170, 2-2-171), as applied to independent candidates, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing impracticable deadlines, limiting write-in access, unverifiable procedures, foreclosing relief through deliberate delay, and denying meaningful appellate relief?

5. Do these appellate practices, when deployed in the context of constitutional ballot access litigation, create or perpetuate unconstitutional barriers to meaningful legal and political participation in violation of substantive and procedural due process, as articulated in Supreme Court ballot access decisions?

6. Should the Court reconsider the precedents in Jenness v. Fortson, Anderson v. Celebrezze, Burdick v. Takushi, and similar cases in light of recent procedural anomalies—such as issuing a mandate during pending rehearing and reinstating a vacated opinion—that undermine the judgments those cases relied upon?

7. Does the mootness doctrine's "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception apply where independent candidates will confront the same ballot access barriers and truncated appellate timelines in future cycles?

Whether the Eleventh Circuit violated Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b) and due process by issuing a mandate during pending en banc rehearing and reinstating a vacated panel opinion