ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAAB
1
Name EmailTopicQuestion and SplitCaseDue Date
2
Larry Lawyerlarry.lawyer@emory.eduSplit on the question of whether Pepsi and Coke are really just the same thingPepsi v. Coca-Cola, 123 U.S. 456 (2024);
2/1
3
Ryan Sohrsoh@emory.edu4th Amendment, Criminal ProcedureIs evidence gathered via a geofence warrant admissible?
The en banc Fourth Circuit joins the Eleventh Circuit, saying yes, but doesn’t reach a consensus on why. The Fifth Circuit said that geofence warrants are a form of general warrant that is categorically banned under the Fourth Amendment.		United States v. Chatrie, 136 F.4th 100 (4th Cir. 2025)10/3
4
Robin Felix Finch RFinch3@emory.edu2nd AmendmentWhether banning firearm sales to 18-20 year olds is constitutional. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the federal under-21 ban is constitutional, but the Fifth Circuit has held that it isn’tReese v. Bureau of Alcohol, Docket No. 23-30033 (5th Cir. Jan 13, 2023); Joshua McCoy v. ATF, Docket No. 23-02085 (4th Cir. Oct 17, 2023),10/10
5
Tatum PikeTatum.pike@emory.eduTitle IX Discrimination, Sexual HarassmentWhether a single incident of sexual harassment can be enough to trigger federal protections under anti-discrimination law.

A split panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a single incident of sexual harassment can give rise to Title IX liability for an educational institution under certain circumstances. The ruling in Arana v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys. , reversed a grant of summary judgment to the University of Wisconsin and sent the case back to the lower court.

The ruling aligns the Seventh Circuit with the First, Fourth, and Eleventh circuits, but is at odds with opinions from Sixth and Eighth circuits.		ISABELLE ARANA, Plaintiff Appellant, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM, Defendant Appellee., No. 22-2454, 2025 BL 242325, (7th Cir. 2025)10/17
6
Alexis Nguyenalexis.nguyen@emory.eduCivil RightsWhether deducting money from an inmate's prison trust account as a fine without permitting him to present evidence at a hearing is a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court's dismissal of an inmate's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process claim. Allowing the inmate's claim to proceed, the panel declined to apply the Supreme Court's analysis in Sandin v. Conner that deprivation of an inmate's liberty interests must pose "atypical and significant hardship" on the inmate to implicate the Due Process Clause. The panel noted Sandin's focus on the deprivation of liberty interests, such as the use of solitary confinement, which it found distinguishable from an inmate's statutorily created property interests in his prison trust account. In limiting Sandin's applicability to liberty interests, the Fourth Circuit panel stated that it was joining the Second and Fifth Circuits and splitting with the Tenth Circuit, which had explicitly applied the Sandin analysis to property interests (Brown v. Stapleton).		Brown v. Stapleton, No. 23-6824 (4th Cir. 2025)10/17
7
Tabitha KimJtkim6@emory.eduCommunicationsUnder the Communications Act §202(h), how strictly should the FCC regulate market deals in the broadcast network industry? The Eighth Circuit partially granted and partially denied petitions for the review of the FCC's 2018 choice to retain the Top-Four Prohibition - which blocks single ownership of more than one of the top four broadcast television stations in a local market. Rejecting several of the petitioner's arguments, the court still held that the FCC's justification to keep the prohibition was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act. Further, the panel vacated the FCC's amendment to Note 11 of its rules that restricts acquisition of network affiliates of another station. The court held that §202(h) of the Telecommunications Act was intended to be deregulatory and that the amendment exceeded the FCC's permission to modify a regulation only if the change did not tighten controls over private dealings.Zimmer Radio of Mid-Missouri, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n No. 24-1380 (8th Cir. 2025)10/17
8
Jackie EvanchikJevanch@emory.edu10/24
9
Robin Felix Finch RFinch3@emory.eduLabor and EmploymentDoes the US. Supreme Court’s claim-by-claim analysis for specific jurisdiction in mass torts from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California apply in collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act?
The Ninth Circuit joins the Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth circuits, saying it does, but the First Circuit says that it doesn’t.		Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 142 F.4th 678 (9th Cir. 2025)10/24
10
Josie Kane Jgkane@emory.edu10/31
11
Kaamya Madras KumaraswamyKmadras@emory.eduAdmin lawIs the Administrative Procedure Act provision that contains a "good cause" removal procedure for administrative law judges constititional?Walmart, Inc. v. Chief Admin. L. Judge of the Off. of the Chief Admin. Hearing Officer, 144 F.4th 1315 (11th Cir. 2025)10/31
12
Stevie Gadalean sgadale@emory.eduImmigration LawCan the US Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Palomar-Santiago be read to foreclose the option for an immigrant to excuse their failure to exhaust their administrative remedies under 8 U.S.C. §1326(d) in all cases?
The Fourth Circuit says no but the Sixth Circuit says yes.		United States v. Castro-Aleman, 141 F.4th 576 (4th Cir. 2025)11/2/2025
13
Ethan PeckEPECK2@emory.eduEvidence/ DiscoveryIs there a requirement that a discovery violation must be willful before a defense witness may be excluded from testifying?
The Sixth Circuit joins the D.C. and Tenth Circuits saying that bad faith should be considered, but it isn’t a prerequisite to exclusion. The Second and Ninth circuits say that bad faith must be shown.		United States v. Pancholi, No. 24-1127, 2025 BL 274537 (6th Cir. Aug. 05, 2025)11/7
14
Alexis Nguyenalexis.nguyen@emory.eduSeparation of PowersIs a decision re-heard by an ALJ that is newly ratified that was originally heard by the same ALJ at a time they were improperly appointed considered a "tainted" decision? Flinton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. No. 23-7715-cv (2nd Cir. 2025)11/7/2025
15
Andrew Sandlin Andrew.sandlin@emory.eduCriminal Law, Criminal ProcedureWhen analyzing whether property is part of a home’s curtilage and a warrant is required to search it, should courts look at how the homeowner actually uses the property or how it objectively looks to a reasonable officer?
The Third Circuit joins the Sixth and Eight circuits, applying the objective approach. The First and Second circuits apply the actual use approach.		United States v. Moses, 142 F.4th 126 (3d Cir. 2025)11/14/2025
16
17
18
Eric Oheric.oh@emory.eduCriminal LawIs the federal law that prohibits convicted felons from possessing guns constitutional on its face and as applied?
The Fifth Circuit says that it is, joining the Eighth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit says it can be enforced against someone on probation for driving under the influence, and the Tenth Circuit says it’s constitutional as applied to a nonviolent felon. The Third Circuit says that the statute is unconstitutional when applied to someone convicted of welfare fraud.		United States v. Morgan, 147 F.4th 522 (5th Cir. 2025);


11/7
19
Maahi Sethimaahi.sethi@emory.eduNative American LawWhen a Native American is charged with an offense committed on Native land that’s a federal offense because it’s listed in the Major Crimes Act. Can they be convicted of a lesser offense that isn’t included in the MCA? The Tenth Circuit says that in that instance a federal district court doesn’t have jurisdiction to convict, but the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth circuits say that a trial court can convict the defendant of a lesser included offense.United States v. Hopson, Docket No. 23-05056 (10th Cir. May 24, 2023)11/14/25
20
IzJanae Solerizjanae.soler@emory.eduSecond AmendmentDid Congress intend to make a conviction for possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) a strict liability crime? The D.C. and Eleventh Circuits say yes, but the First says no.United States v. Pérez-Greaux (1st Cir. 2023)11/21/25
21
22
23
POTENTIAL TOPICS
24
25
SecuritiesWhether life insurance settlements are subject to federal securities law.
The Ninth, Eleventh, and Fifth circuits have ruled that life settlements are securities, but the D.C. Circuit said in 1996 that they aren’t.		SEC v. Barry, 146 F.4th 1242 (9th Cir. 2025);
26
27
Civil ProcedureWhat is the proper test to prove whether a plaintiff has standing to represent a class?
The Fifth Circuit joins the First, Third, Sixth, and Ninth circuits, adopting the class certification approach, which looks at whether the named plaintiff demonstrated individual standing. The standing approach, which looks at whether the named plaintiff’s harms are sufficiently analogous to those of the rest of the class, is used by the Second and Eleventh circuits.		Wilson v. Centene Mgmt. Co., L.L.C., 144 F.4th 780 (5th Cir. 2025)
28
29
30
31
32
33
Data Privacy Law, Internet Consumers[Potentially higher difficulty, multiple questions are raised in the split]
Whether a person who trades their personal information in return for access to a newsletter is a “subscriber” protected by the Video Privacy Protection Act from their information being shared with a third party without their permission.
The Sixth Circuit says that they aren’t, but the Second and Seventh circuits say that they are.		Salazar v. NBA, 118 F.4th 533 (2d Cir. 2024)
34
Immigration LawCan the US Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Palomar-Santiago be read to foreclose the option for an immigrant to excuse their failure to exhaust their administrative remedies under 8 U.S.C. §1326(d) in all cases?
The Fourth Circuit says no but the Sixth Circuit says yes.		United States v. Castro-Aleman, 141 F.4th 576 (4th Cir. 2025)
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100