B. M. v. M. L.

Whether, as applied here, the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments permit a State to employ a totality-of-the-circumstances methodology that transforms concededly lawful conduct into a constitutionally sufficient finding of dangerousness, thereby authorizing the burdening of enumerated constitutional rights without an objectively sufficient present predicate.

Whether the First Amendment permits a State to rely upon lawful petitioning activity as a component of a judicial dangerousness determination where the litigation activity was not found to be frivolous, unlawful, or otherwise outside constitutional protection.

Whether the Second Amendment, as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, permits the continued burdening of the right to keep and bear arms where the dangerousness determination rests upon a methodology that aggregates lawful, non-threatening conduct rather than an objectively sufficient present predicate demonstrating a credible threat of physical harm.