1. Whether an applicant is entitled to all-writs relief preserving the status quo when lower courts admit or rely on digital video without minimal authenticity showings under Rule 901 and adequate safeguards against unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

2. Whether courts must require administrable minimums for digital video authentication—(a) pre-/post-export cryptographic hashes, (b) an Edit Decision List (EDL) or equivalent log for every alteration, (c) time-synchronization and continuity verification, and (d) export chain documentation—before admitting edited or enhanced video.

3. Whether courts should apply process-level bias-mitigation (e.g., LSU-E with documented unmasking and blinded review) to avoid the bias cascade that can occur from narrative-driven selection — export — enhancement > presentation.

Whether the Supreme Court should establish minimum standards for digital video authentication and admissibility in judicial proceedings to prevent potential evidentiary bias and ensure reliability of surveillance footage