Court Opinion

ID: 9443000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:06:37.130874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:19.339268
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing in Banc
Before STEPHENS, Chief Judge, and EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, PRETTYMAN, PROCTOR, BAZELON, and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
EDGERTON, J.,
with whom BAZELON, J., concurs: This appeal was first heard by a division of three judges. Opinions were filed and the order of the District Court was reversed, Judge Prettyman dissenting. The District Court and its judges then renewed a previous motion to be made parties to the appeal, for leave to intervene, and for leave to. submit a brief and make oral argument. They included in their renewed motion a request for a rehearing in banc. The entire motion was denied.
■I think the entire motion should have been granted, in which view Judge Fahy as .well as Judge Bazelon concurs. But the Solicitor General, who. filed the motion as attorney for the District Court and its judges, also moved as amicus curiae for a rehearing in banc. This latter motion was granted. A rehearing was held in which the Solicitor General argued, as amicus curiae, in support of the position he had proposed to take as attorney for the District Court and its judges. Since the whole record, is before us, no substantial purpose would have been served by making them formal parties. The fact that they were not made formal parties does not deprive us of jurisdiction. In re Carter, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 177 F.2d 75; certio-rari denied, Laws, Chief Judge et al. v. Carter, 338 U.S. 900, 70 S.Ct. 250, 94 L.Ed 554.
We adhere to the opinion formerly filed by the majority of the division of three judges. Judge Miller and Judge Fahy concur in the result of that opinion. The order of the District Court is therefore reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with that decision.
Reversed and remanded.