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---56# Petition for Rehearing En Banc78Drafts 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.910## Quick Start1112Gather before drafting:131. Panel opinion (including concurrences/dissents)142. Prior briefs and relevant record excerpts153. 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)1819## Threshold Analysis2021Determine which FRAP 35(a) ground applies before drafting:2223| 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 |2728> Even clear panel error does not justify en banc review absent conflict or exceptional importance.2930## Document Structure3132### 1. Caption33- Full court name, case number, parties with appellate designations34- Title: "Petition for Rehearing En Banc"35- Circuit-specific formatting (margins, font, spacing)3637### 2. Introduction (300–400 words)38- Open with the specific FRAP 35(a) ground39- Conflict track: identify conflicting courts, the legal question, quote conflicting language40- Importance track: identify broader impact — affected litigants, statutory interpretation, constitutional implications41- Must be self-evident within two paragraphs4243### 3. Statement of the Case (500–800 words)44- Streamlined procedural history relevant to the petition only45- Facts framed to show the case cleanly presents the legal question46- Do not relitigate factual disputes or recount the full trial record4748### 4. Issues Presented (1–3 max)49- Discrete yes/no questions of law50- Frame to highlight conflict or exceptional importance51- Prefer pure legal questions over fact-bound applications5253### 5. Argument5455Structure 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 wrong5859Conflict checklist:60- Precise identification of conflicting decisions61- Quoted language from panel opinion and conflicting authority62- Holding-level conflict (not factual differences or dicta)63- Resulting uncertainty for practitioners/lower courts6465Exceptional importance checklist:66- Categories of affected cases or litigants67- Impact on statutory/regulatory scheme68- Case volume or frequency of the question69- Scholarly commentary or amicus interest if available7071Tone: acknowledge the high bar; do not reassert rejected arguments; do not challenge factual findings; address vehicle problems candidly.7273### 6. Conclusion (50–100 words)74- Request: grant petition, vacate panel decision, decide en banc or remand75- No new arguments7677### 7. Required Certifications7879| 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 |8485## Pitfalls and Checks8687- **Deadline is jurisdictional** — count from judgment entry date (not opinion date); FRAP 35(c) cannot be extended; account for weekends/holidays88- **Word/page limits** — FRAP 35(b)(2): 3,900 words or 15 pages; check circuit variations89- **Vehicle assessment** — ideal cases present clean legal questions on developed records without procedural complications90- **Self-contained** — non-panel judges must understand the petition without prior case familiarity91- **Citation accuracy** — verify every cite against original source; pinpoint cites; Bluebook format92- **Court research** — en banc grant rates vary by circuit (some < 1%); consider court composition93- **State equivalents** — verify applicable state rule, deadline, and procedural differences from FRAP 35
lev-os