Court Opinion

ID: 9449351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:10:12.937106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:48.441311
License: Public Domain

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent from the court’s order that reinstates the original displaced panel and directs that the issues in this case not previously reached by that panel be determined by it.
Section 46(c) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code reads as follows:
“§ 46. Assignment of judges; divisions ; hearings; quorum
* # -x- * *
“(c) Cases and controversies shall be heard and determined by a court or division of not more than three judges, unless a hearing or rehearing before the court in banc is ordered by a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit who are in active service. A court in banc shall consist of all active circuit judges of the circuit.”
It is obvious that when a court of appeals in any case determined by a panel grants a rehearing of the case before the court sitting in banc, the full bench of its judges supplants the panel, i. e., “court or division” of three judges, that first heard and determined the controversy. So I agree with my colleagues that an in banc court does not sit as an appellate court of review over its own panels. If such were so, the result reached here by the panel would not have been disturbed.
However, it seems equally obvious to me that the in banc court having supplanted the panel, the “unless” clause in 28 U.S.C. § 46(c) commands that the in banc court hear and determine all the undetermined issues remaining undisposed of in this controversy. No language in the statutes dealing with Courts of Appeals, 28 U.S.C. §§ 41-48, and no precedent, can be found that justifies an in banc court that has partially heard a case ordering a remand, or a reference, of that case to a displaced panel in order for that panel to determine issues the in banc court did not wish to determine.
I would order that the eight judges-who have displaced the original panel carry the ease forward and determine-the undetermined issues. Only by so doing will subsequent proceedings in this-controversy be secure from a challenge that they are being conducted by an unauthorized tribunal.