United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2003 · Constitutional Law
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).)