CRS Report Highlights Growing Circuit Splits Across Federal Courts

A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report has identified new and developing disagreements among federal appeals courts over the interpretation of federal law, including a dispute involving debt collection procedures.

Published in July, the CRS analysis examines circuit splits arising from June 2026 court decisions across six legal areas. These disagreements can result in federal laws being interpreted differently depending on the jurisdiction where a case is heard.

The report provides Congress with information about legal questions that could eventually require legislative clarification or review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why Circuit Splits Matter

A circuit split occurs when two or more federal courts of appeals reach different conclusions about the same or similar questions of federal law.

Because appellate decisions generally govern federal courts within their respective circuits, unresolved splits can lead to different legal standards across the country.

The CRS report identifies several developing disagreements, including three involving the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

Courts Divide Over Federal Debt Collection Procedures

One of the splits identified by CRS concerns venue transfers under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act.

The dispute centers on what happens when a court fails to follow the statute’s mandatory venue transfer requirements after a debtor makes a timely request.

The Second Circuit concluded that when a debtor properly and timely requests a transfer, the statutory language makes the transfer mandatory. It further determined that a failure to transfer the proceeding is not subject to harmless error review.

The Sixth Circuit has taken a different approach regarding whether violations of the transfer requirement can be evaluated under harmless error principles.

The Ninth Circuit, according to the report, has reached conclusions similar to the Second Circuit concerning the mandatory nature of the statutory language and the applicability of harmless error review.

The disagreement therefore raises a broader procedural question: whether a violation of an explicitly mandatory statutory requirement can nevertheless be treated as harmless under certain circumstances.

Energy Policy Split Affects Local Fossil-Fuel Restrictions

The CRS report also discusses a disagreement between the Second and Ninth Circuits involving the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

At issue is whether federal law preempts state and local measures restricting fossil-fuel appliances in new buildings.

The Second Circuit concluded that EPCA does not preempt such measures. Its reasoning distinguished between federal regulation of an appliance’s standardized energy efficiency and rules governing how consumers use appliances.

The Ninth Circuit reached a different conclusion, interpreting EPCA’s preemption provisions to encompass restrictions affecting consumer use of covered appliances.

The disagreement has implications for the authority of states and municipalities seeking to regulate the use of fossil-fuel appliances in buildings.

Circuits Address Judicial Review Under Adam Walsh Act

Another area of disagreement involves the Adam Walsh Act and the availability of judicial review for certain non constitutional claims arising in immigration proceedings.

The Seventh Circuit disagreed with the D.C. Circuit on the non constitutional claims issue. At the same time, it joined the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits on that issue.

The Seventh Circuit also largely agreed with the Fourth and Sixth Circuits that such claims may be reviewed only in the context of a removal order.

The underlying disputes concern how broadly courts interpret statutory limitations on judicial review.

These questions can affect immigration proceedings involving petitions for immediate-relative status as part of the process for adjusting to lawful permanent resident status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Potential Role for Congress and Supreme Court

Circuit splits do not automatically result in legislative changes or Supreme Court review. However, persistent disagreements can increase pressure for a nationwide resolution.

Congress can address a split by amending or clarifying the statutory language at issue. Alternatively, the Supreme Court may agree to hear a case and establish a uniform interpretation that applies nationwide.

CRS reports tracking circuit splits help lawmakers identify areas where federal statutes are being interpreted inconsistently and where congressional action may be considered.

What Comes Next

The June decisions tracked by CRS demonstrate how disagreements among federal appellate courts can affect areas ranging from debt collection procedures to energy regulation and immigration.

Until Congress provides additional statutory clarity or the Supreme Court addresses the disputed questions, different interpretations may continue to apply across federal circuits.

For the financial services and debt collection sectors, the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act split is particularly noteworthy because it raises questions about how courts should handle violations of mandatory venue transfer requirements.