Circuit Split Alerter

Whether prejudice is automatically presumed when counsel fails to file a brief in an immigration proceeding alleged as ineffective assistance, or whether the alien must affirmatively show a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review a withholding-only/CAT order when the petition does not separately challenge a final order of removal (including a reinstated order).

Whether federal courts assessing diversity jurisdiction over a Lloyd’s of London syndicate must consider the citizenship of every individual underwriting “Name” (treating the syndicate as an unincorporated association) or may instead rely only on the citizenship of the managing agent/active underwriters listed on the policy.

Whether a general appellate remand for resentencing wipes the slate clean and permits the district court to conduct a de novo resentencing (including consideration of issues previously waived) or is limited only to matters implicated by the appellate ruling.

After Wilkinson v. Garland (2024), what is the proper standard of review a court of appeals should apply to the BIA’s application of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard in cancellation-of-removal cases: substantial-evidence review or clear-error review?

Whether the National Labor Relations Board has statutory authority under 29 U.S.C. § 160(c) to award "direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms" (the Thryv make-whole remedy) that may exceed interim earnings.

Whether requiring all spectators to watch a criminal trial exclusively via an audiovisual overflow room constitutes a 'total closure' (triggering the Waller overriding-interest test) or only a 'partial closure' (triggering a lesser, substantial-reason test) under the Sixth Amendment public-trial right.

Whether interpretation/applicability of a forum-selection clause (e.g., which parties and claims the clause covers) is governed by federal common law or by the substantive state/foreign law that governs the contract, while enforceability remains governed by federal law.

Whether a conviction under Virginia Code § 18.2-53.1 (use or display of a firearm during the commission of robbery) categorically qualifies as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), either through the elements clause or the enumerated-offense clause.

Whether, in Federal Tort Claims Act cases, the claim-preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment is governed by the forum State’s law where the act or omission occurred or by federal common-law res judicata principles.

Whether 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)'s "effective-prohibition" clause applies to the denial of a single wireless-tower permit (significant-gap test) or only to broader state or local rules regulating tower siting.

Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 requires the government to give a defendant specific written notice of the particular supervised-release condition (or statutory crime) alleged to have been violated, or whether notice of the underlying conduct alone suffices.

Whether, in an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), a court is limited to examining the nature of the predicate felony conviction or may consider the defendant’s broader criminal history and characteristics to assess dangerousness.

Whether, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, a district court may (or must) consider objective video evidence of an incident when deciding a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) supplies appellate jurisdiction to review pre-conviction restraining or preservation orders over assets subject to criminal forfeiture.