Circuit Split Alerter

Whether the existence of exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless home entry in a §1983 civil case is a question of fact for the jury (reviewed deferentially) or a question of law reviewed de novo by appellate courts.

Whether the Clean Water Act’s 60-day pre-suit notice requirement in 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b) is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit or a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule.

Whether the prolonged retention of property that was lawfully seized at its inception is governed by the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement or solely by due-process principles.

Whether claims challenging Progressive’s use of the Projected Sold Adjustment (or similar downward valuation deductions) can be certified as a Rule 23(b)(3) class or whether individualized ACV damages inquiries predominate.

Whether district courts must give affirmative notice to pro se incarcerated litigants about the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 before ruling on a motion for summary judgment.

Whether equitable tolling applies to the Immigration and Nationality Act’s numerical limitation that allows an alien to file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is interpreted in an offense-specific manner (looking to the statutory maximum for the predicate crime) or in a defendant-specific manner (looking to the maximum imprisonment actually available to the particular defendant).

Whether, in an FCC forfeiture collection action under 47 U.S.C. § 504(a), the district court’s “trial de novo” permits the defendant to raise statutory‐interpretation and constitutional challenges to the underlying forfeiture order, or whether such challenges are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals under 47 U.S.C. § 402(a) and the Hobbs Act.

Whether federal bankruptcy courts must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules under Klaxon, or may instead apply a federal common-law choice-of-law rule.

Whether a State, acting solely as proprietor of publicly owned property, may ban the carry of firearms on that property without undertaking the historical-tradition analysis required by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.

Whether a second-in-time federal habeas filing (28 U.S.C. § 2254/§ 2255) made while the appeal from the first habeas judgment is still pending is a “second or successive” application that triggers the gate-keeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

Whether § 922(g)(1) may be applied categorically to felons (or felons with drug-trafficking/violent predicates) without an individualized determination of dangerousness after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, or whether defendants are entitled to an as-applied, fact-specific dangerousness inquiry.

Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars federal-court Takings Clause suits seeking payment of accrued (pre-judgment) interest on property held by a state under unclaimed-property statutes, when the plaintiff styles the relief as declaratory or injunctive under Ex parte Young.

Whether the First-Amendment church-autonomy doctrine is a Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional bar or an affirmative merits defense raised under Rule 12(b)(6).

Whether a state may uphold a physical-presence requirement for alcohol retailers at step two of the Tennessee Wine test merely by characterizing it as an 'essential feature' of the three-tier system, without producing concrete public-health evidence.