Backdated court judgments

1. In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, 140 S. Ct. 696 (2020), this Court held that courts may not use nunc pro tunc orders to retroactively create jurisdiction (facts) where none existed. Does a state appellate court violate the Fourteenth Amendment ’ s Due Process Clause when it affirms — via an unreviewable Per Curiam Affirmance — a trial court judgment entered nunc pro tunc to a date when the trial court demonstrably lacked subject matter jurisdiction? 2. Does Article V, § 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, which categorically prevents the Florida Supreme Court from reviewing unwritten Per Curiam Affirmances (PCAs), violate the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause as applied, when it operates to permanently insulate structurally void orders from state supreme court supervision, thereby precluding an "adequate and independent state ground" for denial of relief under Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)? 3. May federal courts lawfully invoke Younger abstention to permit the federal enforcement of void state arrears (e.g., U.S. Treasury offsets and passport revocation), or invoke the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to dismiss related federal civil claims, when the underlying state judgment is a nullity ab initio, or does such application unconstitutionally incentivize state tribunals to weaponize void orders without fear of federal review?