Scott Erik Stafne v. Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington, et al.

Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 permits a federal court to impose sanctions upon an attorney for presenting a nonfrivolous structural constitutional challenge concerning the authority of a judicial officer to exercise Article III judicial power, where the challenge is grounded in constitutional text, statutory interpretation, and historical evidence, and where that constitutional question has not been definitively resolved by this Court or the court of appeals governing the district court.

Whether, under this Court’s decisions in Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982), and Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 (2023), a district court retains jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions based on arguments concerning its authority to proceed after a notice of appeal invoking the collateral order doctrine has transferred jurisdiction over those issues to the court of appeals.