This case arises from a state-court adjudicative process in which the neutrality of decision making was called into question by sworn testimony describing staff-level interference: Petitioner's motions were withheld from consideration while Respondents' motions were docketed or ruled upon; the staff attorney exercised discretionary control over motion scheduling and information flow; and serious allegations of procedural manipulation were raised in open court and left unrebutted. Rather than address these structural concerns, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued an unexplained summary affirmance under its Rule 36, and the Georgia Supreme Court denied review. Taken together, the breakdown at the trial level and the silence at the appellate level left preserved federal constitutional claims unresolved and effectively insulated from meaningful review. This case presents fundamental questions about whether due process permits such a system to operate without judicial explanation.

1. Structural Due Process / Neutral Adjudication
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a state trial court's adjudicative process is alleged to be structurally compromised by undisclosed staff-level interference affecting motion scheduling, information filtering, and record development, where sworn post-judgment testimony raises those concerns, yet no state court ever conducts a hearing, makes findings, or adjudicates the resulting federal constitutional claim.

2. Rule 36 Summary Affirmances / Federal Review / National Guidance
Whether federal review under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) is effectively frustrated, contrary to this Court's precedents, when a state intermediate appellate court affirms a final judgment through an unexplained summary disposition, and the state supreme court subsequently denies discretionary review without explanation, leaving it impossible to determine whether the judgment rests on adequate and independent state grounds, thereby insulating preserved federal due-process claims from meaningful appellate scrutiny and necessitating this Court's guidance.

Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a state trial court's adjudicative process is alleged to be structurally compromised by undisclosed staff-level interference affecting motion scheduling and record development, where sworn post-judgment testimony raises those concerns yet no state court conducts a hearing or adjudicates the resulting federal constitutional claim, and whether federal review is effectively frustrated when a state intermediate appellate court issues an unexplained summary affirmance and the state supreme court denies discretionary review without explanation, leaving preserved federal due-process claims insulated from meaningful appellate scrutiny