Circuit Split Alerter

Whether an order dismissing a complaint but granting leave to amend is an appealable "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291/§ 1295 before the plaintiff either amends, the amendment period expires, or the plaintiff formally elects to stand on the dismissed complaint.

Does 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) require mandatory, no-bond detention of non-admitted aliens found inside the United States, or does 8 U.S.C. § 1226 govern their detention and allow the possibility of bond?

Whether the phrase “the people” in the Second Amendment includes aliens who are illegally or unlawfully present in the United States for purposes of Bruen’s step-one inquiry.

Whether the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to advise naturalized-citizen clients that a guilty plea may expose them to denaturalization (and consequent deportation).

Whether Rule 23’s implicit ascertainability requirement includes a separate "administrative feasibility" component that obligates the proponent of class certification to show an administratively workable method of identifying class members.

Whether, in National Labor Relations Act §10(j) proceedings, a district court may infer irreparable harm from the nature of an employer’s alleged unfair-labor practice (such as refusal to bargain) without independent factual evidence, or must require a clear evidentiary showing of likely irreparable harm under the Winter standard.

Whether the ‘pocket-veto’ provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(3) and (h)) violate the Appointments Clause and, if so, whether they must be severed and/or plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief when those provisions were not invoked in the challenged rulemaking.

Whether the Clean Air Act permits citizen suits against state regulators acting in their regulatory capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 7604/§7605.

Whether federal habeas courts may grant relief on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on the cumulative prejudice of multiple alleged attorney errors when no single error is independently prejudicial under Strickland and AEDPA.

Whether inchoate drug offenses such as conspiracy qualify as a “controlled substance offense” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) for purposes of the career-offender enhancement.

Whether the 30-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is subject to equitable tolling after the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. Bondi.

Proper standard of review (IIRIRA substantial-evidence vs. clear-error) for appellate courts assessing the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that removal would not cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).

Whether the National Labor Relations Board possesses statutory authority under 29 U.S.C. § 160(c) to award compensation for "foreseeable pecuniary harms" (so-called "Thryv remedies") as part of its make-whole relief.

Whether Reed v. Ross's second category of novelty continues to provide 'cause' to excuse a procedural default on collateral review after Bousley v. United States.

Whether § 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes social-media platforms from liability for harms allegedly caused by their algorithmic recommendation and amplification of third-party content.