United States v. Neil Chandran

Circuit 8May 19, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 55/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Dismissed

The Eighth Circuit dismissed Neil Suresh Chandran’s interlocutory appeal that challenged district-court pretrial orders allowing the Government to retain custody of assets alleged to be forfeitable. The panel held it lacked jurisdiction because the orders neither granted nor denied an injunction within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and Chandran failed to show they had the practical effect of an injunction that could only be reviewed by immediate appeal.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

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.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 2Circuit 9Circuit 11

Section 1292(a)(1) provides jurisdiction to immediately appeal pre-conviction forfeiture restraint orders because they are or function as injunctions.

Circuit 1Circuit 2Circuit 8(this circuit)

Section 1292(a)(1) does not supply jurisdiction over such orders absent an explicit or practical injunction coupled with irreparable harm; interlocutory appeal therefore is unavailable.

Conflict Summary

Some circuits treat pretrial restraining orders that preserve potentially forfeitable assets as appealable interlocutory injunctions under § 1292(a)(1); other circuits—including the Eighth Circuit in this case—hold such orders are not appealable unless they expressly grant or deny an injunction or satisfy the ‘practical-effect’ plus irreparable-harm test.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Neil Suresh Chandran
Appellee:United States of America