Circuit Split Alerter

Proper pleading framework for Title IX claims challenging university disciplinary actions—whether plaintiffs must fit their allegations into specific doctrinal categories (erroneous-outcome, selective-enforcement, deliberate-indifference) or may proceed under a straightforward plausibility standard without categorical tests.

Whether the sentencing disparity created by a non-retroactive change in sentencing law can constitute an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

Whether the National Labor Relations Board has statutory authority under the National Labor Relations Act to impose the irrebuttable one-year "successor bar," which compels a successor employer to recognize and bargain with an incumbent union even if the union lacks majority employee support.

Whether a defendant preserves a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A) objection merely by stating during allocution that counsel did not review the presentence investigation report with him, thereby triggering harmless-error review, or whether a separate, formal objection is required, triggering plain-error review on appeal.

Whether an omission from an official record must be material in order to constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519.

Whether the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (18 U.S.C. § 3663A) allows restitution for purely psychological or mental-anguish injuries (including related lost income) when the victim suffered no physical 'bodily injury.'

Whether state laws that ban civilian possession of AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles and/or magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment after N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.

Whether the continuing-violation doctrine applies to Title VII disparate-treatment claims so that discrete acts outside the administrative filing window can be treated as part of one actionable claim.

Whether courts should use a categorical, offense-based test or conduct an individualized assessment of the defendant’s specific conduct and history when deciding as-applied Second Amendment challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

Whether consent is a valid defense (and who bears the burden of proving non-consent) in prisoner sexual-abuse claims brought under the Eighth Amendment/§1983.

Whether a prisoner who invokes the imminent-danger exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) must show both traceability and redressability (a two-part nexus) between the alleged danger and the claims in the complaint.

Whether a non-retroactive change to federal sentencing law (specifically the First Step Act’s reduction of § 924(c) penalties) can constitute an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

What is the correct appellate standard of review for a district court's denial of a motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)?

Whether an interlocutory order that, through partial summary judgment, effectively denies a request for permanent injunctive relief is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) without the appellant satisfying the Carson v. American Brands ‘serious-consequence / unreviewability’ factors.

Whether a technology company’s automated hash-value matching of suspected child-pornography images constitutes a qualifying "private search" that permits subsequent warrantless government review under the Fourth Amendment.