William F. Kaetz v. United States, et al.

Whether a court of appeals may deny mandamus relief when a district court in a § 2255 proceeding refuses to decide on the merits a properly raised, served on the Attorney General, and Rule 5.1-certified facial challenge under Article I, § 8 and the Tenth Amendment to Congress’s authority to enact the Higher Education Act of 1965 and render student loans nondischarge able under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Whether the lower courts’ repeated reliance on a prior dismissal that never performed an Article I enumerated-powers analysis constitutes a misapprehension of the record warranting relief under Rule 60(d)(3) and mandamus.

Whether this case presents a question of exceptional importance concerning the judicial duty to decide properly certified structural constitutional claims going to the validity of a criminal conviction.