Case: LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD, Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, Missouri State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, et al., Intervenors
Abbreviation: Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. Federal Communications Commission
Decision Date: 1998-09-15
Docket Number: No. 97-1116
Citation: 332 U.S. App. D.C. 172
Volume: 332
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Parties: LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD, Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, Missouri State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, et al., Intervenors.
Judges: Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge, WALD, SILBERMAN, WILLIAMS, GINSBURG, SENTELLE, HENDERSON RANDOLPH, ROGERS, TATEL and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.
Pages: 172–181

Head Matter:
154 F.3d 494
LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD, Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, Missouri State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, et al., Intervenors.
No. 97-1116.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Sept. 15, 1998.
Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge, WALD, SILBERMAN, WILLIAMS, GINSBURG, SENTELLE, HENDERSON RANDOLPH, ROGERS, TATEL and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
A statement by Chief Judge HARRY T. EDWARDS, with whom WALD, Circuit Judge, concurs, dissenting from the denial of the suggestions of rehearing en banc is attached.
A statement filed by Circuit Judge TATEL, with whom WALD, Circuit Judge, concurs, dissenting from the denial of the suggestions of rehearing en banc is also attached.
Circuit Judge ROGERS would grant the suggestions of rehearing en banc.
Circuit Judge GARLAND did not participate in this matter.
ON SUGGESTIONS OF REHEARING EN BANC
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Respondent's and Intervenor's Suggestions of Rehearing En Banc• and the response thereto have been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the court in regular active service did not vote in favor of the suggestions. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
Ordered that the suggestions be denied.