David Martin v. Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, et al.

Whether federal abstention doctrines bar § 1983 claims challenging a state court default judgment entered without constitutionally adequate notice under Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), and without personal jurisdiction, when state appellate courts have dismissed all appeals and no state forum remains available to vindicate federal constitutional rights.

Whether Sprint Communications Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013), permits federal courts to apply Younger abstention to § 1983 claims challenging purely administrative acts by court clerks (document alteration and withholding), rather than ongoing state judicial proceedings.

Whether notice of a remote court proceeding that omits required access information (Zoom credentials) satisfies the Due Process Clause's requirement of notice "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties," Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314.

Whether a state college-contribution statute violates the Due Process Clause by authorizing judicial proceedings in the absence of a justiciable controversy between the parties, Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177, 185 (Ill. 2002), and whether the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when the defendant offered full contribution through a 529 college savings plan [SA2], the plaintiff rejected those offers, and no genuine dispute existed requiring judicial resolution, thereby rendering the judgment void, Thos. P. Gonzalez Corp. v. Consejo Nacional de Produccion de Costa Rica, 614 F.2d 1247, 1256 (9th Cir. 1980).