David Michael Bishop, et al. v. United States, et al.

QUESTION #1. Is the United States Internal Revenue Service1 summons process subject to quashing and constraint by operation of the First Amendment as interpreted through this Court’s line of precedents governing use of regulation and investigation tactics to chill or retaliate against disfavored First Amendment expression, including, inter alia, Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan,2 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis,3 and this Court’s pending decision in Missouri v. Biden4?5 1 Collectively, the Internal Revenue Service, Internal Revenue Agent (ID #0324589) with the pseudonym “Timothy Bauer” in his official capacity are the “IRS”; the IRS in connection with the Executive Branch is collectively the federal “Government.” 2 372 U.S. 58, 59-64, 67 (1963) (hereinafter “Bantam Books”). 3 600 U.S. 570, 589, 594, 600-01, 603 (2023) (hereinafter “303 Creative”). 4 ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2023 WL 4335270 *73 (116 Fed.R.Serv.3d

1. (W.D. La.) aff ’d in part, 83 F.4th 350, 359-68, 372-73, 377- 94, 398 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. granted, Murthy v. Missouri, 144 S.Ct. 7 (2023) (hereinafter collectively “Biden”). 5 Hereinafter Bantam Books, 303 Creative, Biden, and derivative precedents such as White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1226-28 (9th Cir. 2000), Otto v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, 981 F.3d 854, 859- 872 (11th Cir. 2020), rehearing en banc denied, 41 F.4th 1271 (11th Cir.); Høeg M.D. v. Newsom, 652 F.Supp.3d 1172, 1178-79, 1183-1191 (E.D. Cal. 2023), Lightborne Pub., Inc. v. Citizens For Community Values, 2009 WL 778241 *2, 7-8 (S.D. Ohio), and ACLU v. City of Pittsburgh, 586 F.Supp. 417, 421-25 (W.D. Pa.

2. are collectively denoted the “Bantam Precedents.”