Opinion ID: 430510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: O.P. 8C provides:

Text: It is the tradition of this court that reported panel opinions are binding on subsequent panels. Thus, no subsequent panel overrules a published opinion of a previous panel. Court in banc consideration is required to overrule a published opinion of this court. 5 This construction is reinforced by the fact that Sec. 46(c), as originally drafted in 1941, distinguished between the two usages of active judge: the majority of the circuit judges may provide for a court of all the active and available circuit judges of the circuit to sit in banc.... See H.R.Rep. No. 1246 (to accompany H.R. 3390), 77th Cong., 1st Sess. (1941) 6 Because Shenker was decided some 11 years before Congress imposed a strict new rule of disqualification codified at 28 U.S.C. Secs. 455(b)(4), (d)(4) (1976), it might be appropriate for the Supreme Court to re-evaluate Shenker's broad grant of discretion to interpret Sec. 46(c). That provision was enacted in an era when recusals were far less common, and when Congress probably could not have foreseen the effect of frequent recusals on the in banc voting procedure. So far, however, the Supreme Court has chosen not to re-examine Sec. 46(c)'s interpretation by the circuits. See In re American Broadcasting Companies, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 538, 78 L.Ed.2d 718 (1983) (denying writ of mandamus to compel rehearing in banc after the Sixth Circuit refused a rehearing, despite a 5-4 vote by participating judges in favor of an in banc with one recusal) 7 Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, 712 F.2d 899, 901-906 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 703, 79 L.Ed.2d 168 (1984) 8 Announcement of Amended Seventh Circuit Operating Procedures (April 18, 1983) (A simple majority of the voting active judges is required to grant a rehearing) 9 Eighth Circuit Local Rule 16(a) provides in relevant part: A majority of the judges ... who are not disqualified in the particular case or controversy may order a hearing or rehearing en banc. 10 Ford Motor Co. v. FTC, 673 F.2d 1008, 1012 n. 1 (9th Cir.1981) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting on other grounds). Significantly, under the Ninth Circuit's limited en banc rule, only 11 of the 23 active members of that Court sit on an en banc panel. Therefore, unlike our Court where participation by all ten active judges is the norm, en banc decisions in the Ninth Circuit are necessarily the product of a minority of that Court's members 11 For a recent discussion of this trend, see Harper, The Breakdown in Federal Appeals, 70 A.B.A.J. 56 (Feb.1984)