Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Drafts a petition seeking full appellate court reconsideration of a panel decision under FRAP 35 or state equivalents. En banc review is extraordinary — it requires more than panel error.

Quick Start

Gather before drafting:

1. Panel opinion (including concurrences/dissents)
2. Prior briefs and relevant record excerpts
3. Conflicting authority (Supreme Court, circuit, or intra-circuit)
4. Court-specific local rules (formatting, word limits, certifications)
5. Filing deadline — 14 days from judgment entry under FRAP 35(c) (non-extendable); state courts vary (14–30 days)

Threshold Analysis

Determine which FRAP 35(a) ground applies before drafting:

Even clear panel error does not justify en banc review absent conflict or exceptional importance.

Document Structure

1. Caption

• Full court name, case number, parties with appellate designations
• Title: "Petition for Rehearing En Banc"
• Circuit-specific formatting (margins, font, spacing)

2. Introduction (300–400 words)

• Open with the specific FRAP 35(a) ground
• Conflict track: identify conflicting courts, the legal question, quote conflicting language
• Importance track: identify broader impact — affected litigants, statutory interpretation, constitutional implications
• Must be self-evident within two paragraphs

3. Statement of the Case (500–800 words)

• Streamlined procedural history relevant to the petition only
• Facts framed to show the case cleanly presents the legal question
• Do not relitigate factual disputes or recount the full trial record

4. Issues Presented (1–3 max)

• Discrete yes/no questions of law
• Frame to highlight conflict or exceptional importance
• Prefer pure legal questions over fact-bound applications

5. Argument

Structure each issue as:

• A. Threshold — why en banc review is warranted (conflict comparison OR evidence of broad impact)
• B. Merits — why the panel's reasoning is wrong

Conflict checklist:

• Precise identification of conflicting decisions
• Quoted language from panel opinion and conflicting authority
• Holding-level conflict (not factual differences or dicta)
• Resulting uncertainty for practitioners/lower courts

Exceptional importance checklist:

• Categories of affected cases or litigants
• Impact on statutory/regulatory scheme
• Case volume or frequency of the question
• Scholarly commentary or amicus interest if available

Tone: acknowledge the high bar; do not reassert rejected arguments; do not challenge factual findings; address vehicle problems candidly.

6. Conclusion (50–100 words)

• Request: grant petition, vacate panel decision, decide en banc or remand
• No new arguments

7. Required Certifications

Pitfalls and Checks

• Deadline is jurisdictional — count from judgment entry date (not opinion date); FRAP 35(c) cannot be extended; account for weekends/holidays
• Word/page limits — FRAP 35(b)(2): 3,900 words or 15 pages; check circuit variations
• Vehicle assessment — ideal cases present clean legal questions on developed records without procedural complications
• Self-contained — non-panel judges must understand the petition without prior case familiarity
• Citation accuracy — verify every cite against original source; pinpoint cites; Bluebook format
• Court research — en banc grant rates vary by circuit (some < 1%); consider court composition
• State equivalents — verify applicable state rule, deadline, and procedural differences from FRAP 35