Whether the Fifth Circuit's new mechanical test complies with the conceptual approach mandated by this Court in Kirby and Kossick

QUESTION PRESENTED In Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby, 548 U.S. 14 (2004), this Court mandated that a conceptual approach—not a spatial approach—be utilized to determine if the principal objective of a contract is maritime commerce, which may require the application of federal maritime law. In Kossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U.S. 731 (1961), which Kirby heavily relied upon, this Court stated that when deciding this issue, “[p]recedent and usage are helpful insofar as they exclude or include certain common types of contract.” Jd. at 735. The First, Second, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have all performed the required conceptual analysis set forth in Airby and Kossick by reviewing the nature and subject matter of a contract and past precedent when determining whether a contract’s principal objective is maritime commerce and thus governed by maritime law. In the case at hand, the Fifth Circuit developed a new mechanical two-part test that involves a “spatial” approach and does not allow for case law to be considered when classifying a contract as maritime or non-maritime. THE QUESTION PRESENTED Is: Whether the Fifth Circuit’s new mechanical test— which is inconsistent with the analysis utilized by the First, Second, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits— complies with the conceptual approach mandated by this Court in Azrby and Kossick.