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