1. Whether a federal district court violates a party's due process rights under the Fifth (or Fourteenth) Amendment by striking that party's opposition to summary judgment without affording an opportunity to respond to a motion to strike, when the opposition constitutes the party's only substantive defense to a dispositive motion.

2. Whether a district court's failure to follow the procedures established in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56—by disposing of a summary judgment response without considering its content or allowing supplementation—undermining the essential procedural safeguards that govern Rule 56 motion constitutes reversible error when it deprives a party of the opportunity to oppose summary judgment.

3. Whether the Circuit Split and Jurisprudential Uncertainty Warrant Review by this Court. There is no clear, uniform standard across federal courts on whether a motion to strike a summary judgement opposition may be granted without allowing a response. Some circuits discourage motions to strike entirely in this context, while others allow limited use when evidence is untimely or undisclosed. This inconsistent practice affects litigants' substantive rights, fosters procedural unfairness, particularly pro se or disadvantaged parties, and creates a procedural gap that demands clarification from this Court.

Whether a federal district court violates a party's due process rights by striking a summary judgment opposition without providing an opportunity to respond to a motion to strike, thereby depriving the party of a meaningful opportunity to defend against a dispositive motion