Case Name: Gregorio IGARTÚA, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-04
Citations: 654 F.3d 99
Docket Number: No. 09-2186
Parties: Gregorio IGARTÚA, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
Judges: Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA, BOUDIN, LIPEZ, HOWARD and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 654
Pages: 99–115

Head Matter:
Gregorio IGARTÚA, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
No. 09-2186.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard March 2, 2010.
Decided Aug. 4, 2011.
Gregorio Igartua-De-La-Rosa, Aguadilla, PR, pro se.
Carlos Mendez-Martinez, pro se.
Fred Soltero-Harrington, pro se.
Jorge Perez Diaz, pro se.
Pedro Mendez-Soto, pro se.
Jose Ernesto Garcia-Segarra, pro se.
Iris Y Gareia-Camacho, pro se.
Luis R. Soltero-Harrington, pro se.
Mark R. Freeman, Daniel Riess, Michael Jay Singer, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants, Appellees.
Eliezer Aberto Adarondo-Lopez, Eliezer Adarondo-Ortiz, Claudio Aiff-Ortiz, Adarondo & Lopez Bras, Guaynabo, PR, Mark Christopher Fleming, Wilmerhale LLP, Boston, MA, Seth P. Waxman, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Wilmerhale LLP, Washington, DC, for Intervenor.
Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA, BOUDIN, LIPEZ, HOWARD and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
. Because the vote by the active judges of this court was evenly divided, Judges Lipez, Thompson and myself favoring the granting of en banc review, and Chief Judge Lynch and Judges Boudin and Howard opposing such review, my disagreement with this outcome cannot accurately be called a dissent notwithstanding that a tie vote requires the denial of en banc review pursuant to Rule 35(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Fed. R.App. P. 35(a) ("A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service ... may order that an appeal ... be heard ... by the court of appeals en banc.”).

Opinion:
ORDER OF COURT
Plaintiffs-appellants Gregorio Igartúa and other individual citizen-residents of Puerto Rico have filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Intervenor Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Pursuant to First Circuit Internal Operating Procedure X(C), the Commonwealth's petition for rehearing en banc has also been treated as a petition for rehearing before the original panel. The petitions for rehearing having been denied by the panel of judges who decided the case, and the petitions for rehearing en banc having been submitted to the active judges of this court and a majority of the judges not having voted that the case be heard en banc, it is ordered that the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc be denied.
LYNCH, Chief Judge, BOUDIN and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.
The issues at the heart of this case have already received en banc review, and are not entitled to new review. Six years ago, this court did grant en banc review in Igartúa-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir.2005) (en banc) (.Igartúa III), because of the importance of the issues, and that en banc decision controls the disposition of this petition for en banc review.
Igartúa III held, after fall consideration of the issue, that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is not a self-executing treaty and thus is not binding as a matter of domestic law. Id. at 150. In light of this holding in Igartúa III, the antecedent question of whether the Constitution permits Congress to utilize the treaty power to extend voting rights to U.S. citizen-residents of Puerto Rico is not properly presented.
Our en banc decision in Igartúa III controls this case, despite the views of our dissenting colleagues, who wish to reopen settled issues which have already been given en banc treatment. Not only has no intervening authority called the ICCPR holding of Igartúa III into doubt, but the Supreme Court has expressly ratified this aspect of the en banc decision. See Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 1356, 170 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008) (quoting Igartúa III, 417 F.3d at 150).
We believe Igartúa III was correctly decided and no majority of this court can, in consequence, exist for any outcome other than affirmance of dismissal of the case. Fed. R.App. P. 35(a), which disfavors grants of petitions for en banc review, does not allow continual en banc reviews to reexamine already settled issues.