rehearing-en-banc

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)