1. Whether the Due Process Clause is violated when a State Supreme Court Justice with a potential conflict of interest declines to rule on a motion for recusal, creating procedural paralysis, yet proceeds to adjudicate die case and moot the party 's pending motions.

2. Whether a Court may rely on a litigants supposed "understanding " to moot the unresolved substantive issues where the litigant did not waive those issues, and where the court 's action foreclosed any review of the underlying constitutional question.

3. Whether a state court violates due process when it allows a litigant that affirmatively claims non-party status and disclaims any request for damages to avoid discovery, yet simultaneously grants that same non-party party-specific procedural protections —including excusable-neglect relief appellate participation through purported "outside counsel, " and a permanent injunction based on alleged harm to that non-party —without ever ruling on the litigant 's status.

Whether a state court violates due process when a justice with a potential conflict of interest declines to rule on a recusal motion, creates procedural paralysis, proceeds to adjudicate the case, moots pending motions based on a litigant's supposed understanding without waiver, and grants party-specific protections to a non-party without ruling on its status