What Happened?

If you are involved in a lawsuit, arbitration, immigration case, or election dispute, the federal appeals court in your state may reach a different legal conclusion than a court in another state on the same question. A new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that federal appeals courts reached conflicting conclusions on arbitration, elections, immigration, and separation of powers in August 2026. ​

The CRS flagged four areas where courts are now split:

  • Arbitration: The Seventh Circuit broke with eight other circuits on how judges should review whether someone gave up their right to go to arbitration.
  • Elections: The Fourth Circuit held in *Grant v. Belangia* that South Carolina's law allowing no-excuse mail-in voting only for people 65 and older violated the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, splitting with the Fifth and Seventh Circuits on age-based voting restrictions.
  • Immigration: The First and Third Circuits split over whether certain immigrants must be held in detention while their cases are decided.
  • Acting officials: The Second Circuit ruled that a man serving as Acting U.S. Attorney was not lawfully appointed under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), a 1998 law governing who can temporarily fill a vacant federal post, and threw out grand jury subpoenas he had obtained.

Why Does it Matter to Me?

In the acting-officials case, the Second Circuit's ruling aligned with the Third and Ninth Circuits but conflicts with an earlier Federal Circuit decision, leaving the vacancy-filling question unresolved nationwide. In securities law, the Ninth Circuit held in *KalshiEx, LLC v. Assad* that sports-event contracts offered by a prediction market were not "swaps" under federal commodity law, making them subject to state gaming rules instead; the Sixth Circuit has since deepened that split on different grounds.

Both Sides, Now

A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report warns that circuit splits, where federal appeals courts reach conflicting conclusions, produce nonuniform application of federal law among similarly situated litigants.

Opponents argue that splits can be constructive, letting courts experiment with legal approaches and prompting higher-court review that produces clearer, uniform national rules; a Congressional Research Service background report on the U.S. courts of appeals says courts sometimes use opinions to flag issues for Congress or the Supreme Court.

Congress has no direct role in resolving circuit splits, though it can pass legislation to set a uniform rule. The Supreme Court remains the primary body for settling conflicting appellate decisions.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court accepted the immigration detention case, *Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha*, for review on Oct. 1, taking up the mandatory-detention question this term. The Supreme Court agreed on Oct. 1 to take up the mandatory-detention question under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) in *Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha*.

The Second Circuit's ruling on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act aligns with the Third and Ninth Circuits but conflicts with an earlier Federal Circuit decision, leaving the scope of delegation authority unresolved across circuits.

---

AllCiv makes it easy to stay politically informed and involved.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article