Ramsey Clayter v. Massachusetts

Whether a criminal judgment entered coram non judice, before the trial court acquired lawful authority to proceed and without satisfaction of jurisdictional prerequisites mandated by law, is void ab initio and unenforceable under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Whether the Due Process Clause permits a State to continue enforcing a criminal judgment alleged to be void ab initio where no state or federal tribunal has adjudicated the petitioner's federal constitutional challenge to the trial court's authority to enter that judgment on the merits.

Whether the Due Process Clause permits a State to deny extraordinary relief on the ground that adequate alternative remedies exist or permits the combined operation of state and federal procedural doctrines to foreclose judicial review, when those remedies have been diligently pursued yet fail to provide any forum for adjudicating a substantial federal constitutional claim on the merits.

Whether a petitioner continues to present a live case or controversy by suffering concrete and redressable constitutional injury where a criminal judgment alleged to be void ab initio and entered coram. non judice remains the basis for mandatory sex-offender registration, public notification requirements, restrictions affecting employment and housing opportunities, and other continuing restraints on liberty.