Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate preclusion order disputes

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In litigation between two parties, time-tested principles of claim preclusion and issue preclusion govern when parties may—and may not—litigate issues that were, or could have been, litigated in a prior case. This Court has held that, in a subsequent case between the same parties involving different claims from those litigated in the earlier case; the defendant is free to raise defenses that were not litigated in the earlier case, even though they could have been. The Federal Circuit, . Eleventh Circuit, and Ninth Circuit have all held the same in recent years. Their reasoning is straightforward: Claim preclusion does not bar such defenses, because the claims in the second case arise from different “transactions” and occurrences from the first case, and issue preclusion does not bar them either, because they were never actually litigated. However, The Fifth Circuit, hold they have no authority to adjudicate for lack of ’ ‘ ii jurisdiction to hear preclusion order(s) disputes; which affects the states under their jurisdictions; the nation and public to due process under the 5‘ and 14 constitutional : amendments of the United States. Also, as seen in U.S. . Supreme Court case 18-1086; Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. ) , v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., 17-0361 (Aug. 2, 2018); case