Court Opinion

ID: 9478452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:49:06.825269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:25.917930
License: Public Domain

SILBERMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: I think we should be exceedingly reluctant to agree to an en banc rehearing with two vacancies (as we will shortly have).
D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judge, with whom WILLIAMS and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges, join, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: I think it would be a poor use of our resources to rehear this matter en banc. Both the Fourth and the Ninth Circuits have decided, contrary to our panel, that OMB Circular A-76 is neither an “applicable law” under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(B) nor a “law, rule, or regulation” under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(9)(C)(ii). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. FLRA, 844 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir.1988) (en banc); Defense Language Institute v. FLRA, 767 F.2d 1398 (9th Cir.1985). It is likely that the Supreme Court will want to resolve this question, since it indicated its willingness to decide the same issue when it granted certiorari, 472 U.S. 1026, 105 S.Ct. 3497, 87 L.Ed.2d 629 (1985), to review our decision in EEOC v. FLRA, 744 F.2d 842 (D.C.Cir.1984) even before there was a split in the circuits on this question. The Court vacated its grant of certiorari however, when it determined that the issue was not properly before it. 476 U.S. 19, 106 S.Ct. 1678, 90 L.Ed.2d 19 (1986).
In view of the Supreme Court’s apparent interest in this issue, I do not conceive it to be a sensible allocation of our time to rehear this case en banc. If the Supreme Court, however, chooses not to resolve this question, I do not, by my concurrence today, suggest that I would oppose a request by the government that we consider this issue en banc in a subsequent case.