1. Whether a federal appellate court may deem
constitutional arguments waived when a pro se
appellant, entitled to liberal construction under
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), raised the
substance of those arguments, Ex parte Young
doctrine, but did not use the precise legal terminology
("sovereign immunity," "Eleventh Amendment," or
"judicial immunity") in his opening brief.

2. Whether the Ex parte Young doctrine, 209 U.S.
123 (1908), allows a pro se litigant to pursue
prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against
state judicial officers engaged in ongoing
constitutional violations, notwithstanding Eleventh
Amendment immunity.

3. Whether judicial immunity extends to
ministerial and administrative acts, such as excluding
members of the public from open judicial proceedings,
that violate the First Amendment right of access.

Whether a federal appellate court may deem constitutional arguments waived when a pro se appellant raised the substance of those arguments but did not use precise legal terminology; whether the Ex parte Young doctrine allows prospective relief against state judicial officers for constitutional violations; whether judicial immunity extends to ministerial and administrative acts violating First Amendment access rights