Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Circuit split · criminal law

Whether 21 U.S.C. § 952(a)'s prohibition on importing controlled substances applies to the contiguous zone of the United States.

1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.

  1. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · June 6, 2003

    “6 This mountain of consistent authority is no impediment for the majority: It’s two-for-one day at Circuit Split Emporium, as we boldly go where no other circuit has gone before in holding that section 952(a) does not apply to the contiguous zone.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
    Empirical analysis of this case →

The provision at issue

19 U.S.C. § 1401 — Miscellaneous
“When used in this subtitle or in part I of subtitle II— (a) Vessel The word “vessel” includes every description of water craft or other contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation in water, but does not include aircraft. (b) Vehicle The word “vehicle” includes every description of carriage or other contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land, but does not include aircraft. (c) Merchandise The word “merchandise” means goods, wares, and chattels of every description, and includes …”
Read the full section →

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

What the split turns on

Doctrines & tests:
canon against extraterritoriality

Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.