---
name: rehearing-en-banc
title: Petition for Rehearing En Banc
description: Drafts a Petition for Rehearing En Banc under FRAP 35 or state equivalents. Guides threshold analysis for precedent conflicts and exceptional importance, enforces formatting/word limits, and includes required certifications. Use when seeking full appellate court reconsideration of a panel decision, raising circuit splits, or challenging panel holdings that conflict with controlling authority.
author: CaseMark
author_url: https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/rehearing-en-banc
license: Apache-2.0
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: us
practice: litigation
language: en
tags: [drafting, motion]
---

# Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Drafts a petition seeking full appellate court reconsideration of a panel decision under FRAP 35 or state equivalents. En banc review is extraordinary — it requires more than panel error.

## Quick Start

Gather before drafting:
1. Panel opinion (including concurrences/dissents)
2. Prior briefs and relevant record excerpts
3. Conflicting authority (Supreme Court, circuit, or intra-circuit)
4. Court-specific local rules (formatting, word limits, certifications)
5. Filing deadline — 14 days from judgment entry under FRAP 35(c) (non-extendable); state courts vary (14–30 days)

## Threshold Analysis

Determine which FRAP 35(a) ground applies before drafting:

| Ground | What to Show |
|--------|-------------|
| **Precedent conflict** | Side-by-side incompatible holdings on the same legal question from Supreme Court or circuit authority |
| **Exceptional importance** | Broad impact beyond the parties — affects a class of litigants, statutory scheme, or recurring question |

> Even clear panel error does not justify en banc review absent conflict or exceptional importance.

## Document Structure

### 1. Caption
- Full court name, case number, parties with appellate designations
- Title: "Petition for Rehearing En Banc"
- Circuit-specific formatting (margins, font, spacing)

### 2. Introduction (300–400 words)
- Open with the specific FRAP 35(a) ground
- Conflict track: identify conflicting courts, the legal question, quote conflicting language
- Importance track: identify broader impact — affected litigants, statutory interpretation, constitutional implications
- Must be self-evident within two paragraphs

### 3. Statement of the Case (500–800 words)
- Streamlined procedural history relevant to the petition only
- Facts framed to show the case cleanly presents the legal question
- Do not relitigate factual disputes or recount the full trial record

### 4. Issues Presented (1–3 max)
- Discrete yes/no questions of law
- Frame to highlight conflict or exceptional importance
- Prefer pure legal questions over fact-bound applications

### 5. Argument

Structure each issue as:
- **A. Threshold** — why en banc review is warranted (conflict comparison OR evidence of broad impact)
- **B. Merits** — why the panel's reasoning is wrong

Conflict checklist:
- Precise identification of conflicting decisions
- Quoted language from panel opinion and conflicting authority
- Holding-level conflict (not factual differences or dicta)
- Resulting uncertainty for practitioners/lower courts

Exceptional importance checklist:
- Categories of affected cases or litigants
- Impact on statutory/regulatory scheme
- Case volume or frequency of the question
- Scholarly commentary or amicus interest if available

Tone: acknowledge the high bar; do not reassert rejected arguments; do not challenge factual findings; address vehicle problems candidly.

### 6. Conclusion (50–100 words)
- Request: grant petition, vacate panel decision, decide en banc or remand
- No new arguments

### 7. Required Certifications

| Certificate | Contents |
|-------------|----------|
| **Compliance** | Word count (excluding caption, TOC, TOA, certificates, signature block); typeface (typically 14-pt proportional); word processing software |
| **Service** | Date, method (CM/ECF for federal), each party/counsel with contact info |
| **Signature block** | Attorney signature, bar number, firm, address, phone, email; verify appellate court bar admission |

## Pitfalls and Checks

- **Deadline is jurisdictional** — count from judgment entry date (not opinion date); FRAP 35(c) cannot be extended; account for weekends/holidays
- **Word/page limits** — FRAP 35(b)(2): 3,900 words or 15 pages; check circuit variations
- **Vehicle assessment** — ideal cases present clean legal questions on developed records without procedural complications
- **Self-contained** — non-panel judges must understand the petition without prior case familiarity
- **Citation accuracy** — verify every cite against original source; pinpoint cites; Bluebook format
- **Court research** — en banc grant rates vary by circuit (some < 1%); consider court composition
- **State equivalents** — verify applicable state rule, deadline, and procedural differences from FRAP 35
