Opinion ID: 2994946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ill 1997), and the defendants presumably would

Text: have presented this potentially successful argument when facing this court. However, as noted below, the plaintiffs in that case might not have directed their arguments to this issue. /2 NPS argues that the DiGiore panel did in fact consider the Secretary’s argument because the Secretary’s theory was explained in the district court’s opinion, 987 F. Supp. at 1055-56. However, our opinion in DiGiore is devoid of any discussion of the Secretary’s views or whether deference should be afforded to the Secretary’s construction of the regulation. This suggests that the plaintiffs in DiGiore might have focused on other issues at the appellate level, such as the district court’s principal holding that no actual practice or policy existed. /3 In accordance with Circuit Rule 40(e), this opinion has been circulated among all judges of this court in regular active service. No judge favored a rehearing en banc on the question of overruling the alternative holding of DiGiore.