Betsy Ross, Individually and as Next Friend of Minor K. R. v. Mary Klesius, et al.

Three questions are presented:

1. Did the Court of Appeals below err in requiring Petitioner’s Free Speech claim to be held to a heightened standard of proving Defendant-Respondents’ subjective “awareness” at a clear and convincing level, considering this Court’s rule in Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998), Perry et al v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972), Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will County, Illinois (1968) and Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994), in order to show a causal connection for a retaliation motive by Defendant-Respondents against Betsy Ross, when Judge Quarles of the District Court below found that knowledge by Defendant-Respondents of her protected speech was able to be proven to a reasonable jury?

2. In a matter of first impression, do Foster Parents and Children have the same real property warrant protections under the Castle Doctrine and the Fourth Amendment as U.S. citizen parents and children when there are no exigent or emergent circumstances of imminent physical harm to the children?

3. Do public officials have quasi-immunity when they commit First Amendment retaliation and also restrain private Foster families from publishing “negative” letters in the newspapers, in order to receive a state license for a private foster home?