>The difference is that your point was based on a single circuit ruling, where it's pretty much required that the "another circuit ruling differently" happen before it's even
possible to get to the SC.
It isn't a requirement that there be a circuit split before the Supreme Court will take a case. You're certainly right that a circuit split makes it a lot more likely they'll take it, but that doesn't make it a prerequisite. They've been known to take important cases of first impression without it. If we're going to be pedants then we have to be pedantic, right?