Circuit Split Alerter

Whether the "risk of circumvention of the law" clause in FOIA Exemption 7(E) applies to both the "techniques-and-procedures" prong as well as the "guidelines" prong, or only to the guidelines prong.

Whether a habeas corpus petition challenging immigration detention qualifies as a “civil action” under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), thereby permitting an award of attorney’s fees against the United States.

Whether a district court order denying an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.

Whether country-conditions evidence, standing alone or given significant weight, can satisfy a non-citizen’s burden of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection, or whether the applicant must always produce individualized evidence of persecution or torture.

Whether NLRA §10(c) authorizes the NLRB to award full compensatory damages (all foreseeable pecuniary harms) as part of its make-whole remedy.

Whether the two-level aggravating-role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) applies when a defendant directs another participant to act as a drug courier on only a single occasion without exercising ongoing control or superiority over that participant.

Whether the FTCA’s presentment requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2675 is jurisdictional (depriving courts of subject-matter jurisdiction) or a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule.

Whether kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 categorically qualifies as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) so that the mandatory-minimum sentencing provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3559(f)(2) applies.

Whether § 10(e) of the NLRA bars courts of appeals from considering constitutional challenges not raised before the NLRB, or whether such claims fall within the statute’s “extraordinary circumstances” exception allowing judicial review without agency exhaustion.

Whether a private party may obtain prospective equitable relief (injunction/declaratory judgment) against state officials on Supremacy-Clause-based pre-emption grounds when the underlying federal statute does not confer an individual substantive right—i.e., is there a freestanding ‘equitable cause of action’ recognized under Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center?

Whether due-process requires the Government to bear the burden, by clear-and-convincing evidence, to justify continued immigration detention once that detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (or § 1226(a) in some cases) has become unreasonably prolonged, and thus what procedures apply at the remedial bond hearing.

Whether a district court must give a jury instruction on the 'official restraint' doctrine in an 8 U.S.C. § 1326 illegal-re-entry prosecution and how that doctrine is defined.

Whether the presence of a third-party admiralty claim makes the entire case an "admiralty case" for purposes of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3).

Whether the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (18 U.S.C. § 3663A) authorizes restitution to reimburse a deceased victim’s family member for the family member’s own lost income and related expenses incurred in attending court proceedings.

Whether pro se litigants who did not personally sign a notice of appeal may later be deemed appellants if given notice and an opportunity to ratify the appeal.