All Boasberg should do now is demand "en banc" and get the full panel to rule.
“I am fully prepared to take on this battle,” Owens said. “On behalf of the entire world, I will see you in court.”
. . .
Owens herself had also practically dared the Macrons to sue her, according to the complaint, telling them after the December retraction demand letter to “bring” it. “I’ll run down to the courthouse and file the lawsuit for you,” Owens said. “I might even cover your legal expenses.”
"All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them.” - Walt Disney
I’d really like to see some statistical analysis of the distribution and grouping of these 3-judge circuit court panels, perhaps weighted in some way that relates to the overall import of the case (although this would be unavoidably subjective).
It is an article of faith that these panels are chosen entirely at random, and of course improbable outcomes do happen. Yet in this era where almost any nominally impartial process that can be corrupted is subject to concerted attempts to achieve that goal, I find it hard to believe this critical area of appellate review is magically immune to such pressure.
In searching just now I came upon this 2020 Cornell Law Review article regarding the selection process, and it did not allay my concerns.
How does this work? Does Judge Boasberg have to ask for it to go en banc? I can’t imagine an alternative, but for him to be the only one who can do so seems to ask a lot of a judge even in less fraught circumstances than these.
I’m with you. But Josh Marshall has some excellent advice, I think, not so much for us as for Dem pols. “The Fires Next Time.”
If a party loses before a circuit panel, it may appeal for a rehearing en banc. A majority of the active circuit judges must agree to hear or rehear a case en banc. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure state that en banc proceedings are disfavored but may be ordered to maintain uniformity of decisions within the circuit or if the issue is exceptionally important (Fed. R. App. P. 35(a)).
Each federal circuit has its own particular rules regarding en banc proceedings. (En banc - Wikipedia )
If you haven’t already, read Josh Marshall’s “The Fires Next Time,” posted early this evening/
I just checked out this circuit. A good argument right there for more circuits. CA alone probably deserves its own circuit court, maybe more than one.
Disfavoring en banc proceedings is understandable. The whole system would grind to an utter and complete halt if everyone who’d lost insisted on one. This case does seem exceptionally important, though uniformity of decisions may not (yet) be at issue. I wonder what this circuit’s particular rules are.
I have read it. I still would like to see much more action from opposition leadership. The media may try to suppress the opposition but that is where the opposition must keep shouting.
I think that was Josh’s point. Coordinated action in the form of trumpeting plans that will turn back Trump’s policies and replace them with policies Americans actually want. I don’t know what other form of action is possible from Congressional Dems when they’re in the minority, except for some maneuvers they have been executing on.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 speaks of “invasions, or threatened invasions” as a justification for deporting people. This reminded me of Eric Cline’s 2014 book 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed, where kingdoms and nation states around the Mediterranean had to deal with an influx of people displaced by catastrophic events including earthquakes, crop failures and disruptions to Late Bronze Age military-industrial supply chains. Maybe some future historian will write a similar book about 2025, when migrants have also become “invaders”. Instead of blaming “Sea Peoples” for civilizational demise, we have cartels, gangs such as MS-13, day workers standing outside Home Depot and “woke religion” as the new enemies. It’s baloney, but this is what collapse looks and feels like, and any court that can’t see its function is to preserve civilization isn’t worth much, especially in critical times.
This case has to be pursued, and every effort made to restore judicial independence. It is important that the Senate is stalling Trump’s judicial appointments… unfortunately excepting Emil Bove.
Trump’s too-many-to-count attacks on democracy, government and the American people are developing cracks. One by one, they will begin to crumble and collapse. With luck, there is a chain reaction/critical mass reaction that he can’t withstand, despite controlling all the levers of government. It could happen. He’s decompensating bigly, and his enablers are buffoons. It could happen. Or not.
French for ‘the full bench’, the whole tribunal, not just a three judge panel.
The decision of a panel may be appealed to the full bench, who decide whether to take it. Or the next level appeal goes direct to the Supreme Court.
Damn! You beat me to the punch. I was going to say the same thing. The ACLU has no real alternative to seeking en banc review. On the Supreme Court messing it up, I think they will use their new favorite way to rubber stamp Trump regime lawlessness: the shadow docket. The MAGA 6 “justices” on the Court will ensure the Trump regime can proceed as it wishes while it slowly reviews the appeal. I mean really really really slowly.
Trump couldn’t care less about a Black woman — or really any woman who isn’t a pretty (white) member of his regime.
Depending on the court’s internal rules, one of the panel judges might be able request en banc review. But the most common way to get there is for the losing party to file a motion for reconsideration en banc.
Adding circuits seems like a fine thing to do along with adding more SCOTUS justices.
Thank you.