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:
- Panel opinion (including concurrences/dissents)
- Prior briefs and relevant record excerpts
- Conflicting authority (Supreme Court, circuit, or intra-circuit)
- Court-specific local rules (formatting, word limits, certifications)
- 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:
| Ground |
What to Show |
| Precedent conflict |
Side-by-side incompatible holdings on the same legal question from Supreme Court or circuit authority |
| Exceptional importance |
Broad impact beyond the parties — affects a class of litigants, statutory scheme, or recurring question |
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
| Certificate |
Contents |
| Compliance |
Word count (excluding caption, TOC, TOA, certificates, signature block); typeface (typically 14-pt proportional); word processing software |
| Service |
Date, method (CM/ECF for federal), each party/counsel with contact info |
| Signature block |
Attorney signature, bar number, firm, address, phone, email; verify appellate court bar admission |
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
1---2name: rehearing-en-banc3description: Drafts a Petition for Rehearing En Banc under FRAP 35 or state equivalents. Guides threshold analysis for precedent conflicts and exceptional importance, enforces formatting/word limits, and includes required certifications. Use when seeking full appellate court reconsideration of a panel decision, raising circuit splits, or challenging panel holdings that conflict with controlling authority.4---5
6# Petition for Rehearing En Banc
7
8Drafts 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.
9
10## Quick Start
11
12Gather before drafting:
131. Panel opinion (including concurrences/dissents)
142. Prior briefs and relevant record excerpts
153. Conflicting authority (Supreme Court, circuit, or intra-circuit)
164. Court-specific local rules (formatting, word limits, certifications)
175. Filing deadline — 14 days from judgment entry under FRAP 35(c) (non-extendable); state courts vary (14–30 days)
18
19## Threshold Analysis
20
21Determine which FRAP 35(a) ground applies before drafting:
22
23| Ground | What to Show |
24|--------|-------------|
25| **Precedent conflict** | Side-by-side incompatible holdings on the same legal question from Supreme Court or circuit authority |
26| **Exceptional importance** | Broad impact beyond the parties — affects a class of litigants, statutory scheme, or recurring question |
27
28> Even clear panel error does not justify en banc review absent conflict or exceptional importance.
29
30## Document Structure
31
32### 1. Caption
33- Full court name, case number, parties with appellate designations
34- Title: "Petition for Rehearing En Banc"
35- Circuit-specific formatting (margins, font, spacing)
36
37### 2. Introduction (300–400 words)
38- Open with the specific FRAP 35(a) ground
39- Conflict track: identify conflicting courts, the legal question, quote conflicting language
40- Importance track: identify broader impact — affected litigants, statutory interpretation, constitutional implications
41- Must be self-evident within two paragraphs
42
43### 3. Statement of the Case (500–800 words)
44- Streamlined procedural history relevant to the petition only
45- Facts framed to show the case cleanly presents the legal question
46- Do not relitigate factual disputes or recount the full trial record
47
48### 4. Issues Presented (1–3 max)
49- Discrete yes/no questions of law
50- Frame to highlight conflict or exceptional importance
51- Prefer pure legal questions over fact-bound applications
52
53### 5. Argument
54
55Structure each issue as:
56- **A. Threshold** — why en banc review is warranted (conflict comparison OR evidence of broad impact)
57- **B. Merits** — why the panel's reasoning is wrong
58
59Conflict checklist:
60- Precise identification of conflicting decisions
61- Quoted language from panel opinion and conflicting authority
62- Holding-level conflict (not factual differences or dicta)
63- Resulting uncertainty for practitioners/lower courts
64
65Exceptional importance checklist:
66- Categories of affected cases or litigants
67- Impact on statutory/regulatory scheme
68- Case volume or frequency of the question
69- Scholarly commentary or amicus interest if available
70
71Tone: acknowledge the high bar; do not reassert rejected arguments; do not challenge factual findings; address vehicle problems candidly.
72
73### 6. Conclusion (50–100 words)
74- Request: grant petition, vacate panel decision, decide en banc or remand
75- No new arguments
76
77### 7. Required Certifications
78
79| Certificate | Contents |
80|-------------|----------|
81| **Compliance** | Word count (excluding caption, TOC, TOA, certificates, signature block); typeface (typically 14-pt proportional); word processing software |
82| **Service** | Date, method (CM/ECF for federal), each party/counsel with contact info |
83| **Signature block** | Attorney signature, bar number, firm, address, phone, email; verify appellate court bar admission |
84
85## Pitfalls and Checks
86
87- **Deadline is jurisdictional** — count from judgment entry date (not opinion date); FRAP 35(c) cannot be extended; account for weekends/holidays
88- **Word/page limits** — FRAP 35(b)(2): 3,900 words or 15 pages; check circuit variations
89- **Vehicle assessment** — ideal cases present clean legal questions on developed records without procedural complications
90- **Self-contained** — non-panel judges must understand the petition without prior case familiarity
91- **Citation accuracy** — verify every cite against original source; pinpoint cites; Bluebook format
92- **Court research** — en banc grant rates vary by circuit (some < 1%); consider court composition
93- **State equivalents** — verify applicable state rule, deadline, and procedural differences from FRAP 35
CaseMark