United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2003 · Constitutional Law
334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
Updated
Constitutional Lawrehearing en bancpetition deniedper curiam ordermajority onlyD.C. Circuit
Facts
The only facts stated in the court's majority disposition are procedural. The appellant filed a petition for rehearing en banc, and the appellees filed a response. The petition and response were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. A majority of the active judges did not vote to grant rehearing en banc.
Issue
Whether the D.C. Circuit should grant the appellant's petition for rehearing en banc.
Rule
A petition for rehearing en banc is denied when, after circulation to the full court and a requested vote, a majority of the judges of the court in regular active service do not vote in favor of the petition.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Maple Street Energy filed a petition for rehearing en banc after losing before a panel. The petition and the opposing response were circulated to the full court, and a judge requested a vote. Fewer than a majority of judges in regular active service voted to grant rehearing.
What is the proper disposition of the petition?
Explanation. The majority order establishes a purely procedural rule: once the petition and response are circulated and a vote is requested, rehearing en banc is denied if a majority of the judges of the court in regular active service do not vote in favor of the petition. The order does not require a merits explanation or any further step. (Derived from Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton (2003).)