Why It Matters
Federal appeals courts split in September over handgun sales, immigration detention, prediction markets and fishery councils, according to a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report.
The report says circuit splits cause "nonuniform application of federal law" among similarly situated litigants. It covers selected cases involving the interpretation or validity of federal statutes and regulations, or constitutional questions tied to Congress's lawmaking and oversight functions.
The Big Picture
In Elite Precision Customs v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Fifth Circuit held that three provisions barring direct handgun sales across state lines by licensed dealers violate the Second Amendment. That ruling splits with the Second Circuit, which found the historical record supported such restrictions.
On prediction markets, the Sixth Circuit in KalshiEx LLC v. Schuler declined to halt enforcement of Ohio and Tennessee gambling laws against Kalshi's sports event contracts. The panel held that Kalshi had not shown the contracts were "swaps" under the Commodity Exchange Act. It also held that the Act did not expressly or impliedly preempt state gambling laws. The decision aligns with the Ninth Circuit and splits with the Third Circuit on those points.
Three immigration rulings produced splits.
- In Santos v. Blanche, the Second Circuit held that a removed alien could seek review of Customs and Border Protection's denial of a motion to reconsider, and it remanded the case. The majority split with the Fifth Circuit.
- In B.P. v. Blanche, the Eighth Circuit treated the 30-day deadline for appealing a removal order as a mandatory claims-processing rule. That split with the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Circuits, which have treated the deadline as potentially subject to equitable tolling.
- In Lopez Garcia v. Guadian, a divided Fourth Circuit panel joined eight other circuits in holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention only for unlawfully present aliens actively seeking admission. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have treated "applicant for admission" and "alien seeking admission" as synonymous.
The Eleventh Circuit, in Russo v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, held that some members of regional fishery councils under the Magnuson-Stevens Act were improperly appointed under the Appointments Clause. It declined to vacate the challenged rule. On standing, it split with the First Circuit and joined the Third and Fifth.
The Seventh Circuit also decided Consumers Concrete Corp. v. Central States. It applied a prior partial-withdrawal credit after the four-step pension liability calculation, which results in a lesser amount owed. The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits apply the credit at step two.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court has agreed to review the mandatory detention question in its current term. That review covers the question on which the Fourth Circuit's ruling widened the split.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article
