Legal Definitions - en banc sitting

An en banc sitting (pronounced "ahn bonk") refers to a session where all the judges of a particular court, especially an appellate court, participate in hearing and deciding a case, rather than the usual smaller panel of judges. This practice is typically reserved for cases of exceptional legal importance, to resolve conflicting decisions among different panels of the same court, or to reconsider a previous decision made by a smaller panel. The primary goal is to ensure consistency in the court's rulings and to give full consideration to complex or highly impactful legal questions.

Here are some examples illustrating an en banc sitting:

• Example 1: Resolving Conflicting Interpretations

  Imagine a federal circuit court of appeals, which typically hears cases in panels of three judges. Over time, two different three-judge panels within the same circuit issue conflicting rulings on how a specific federal environmental regulation should be interpreted. One panel might rule that a certain type of industrial discharge requires a permit, while another panel rules it does not. To resolve this inconsistency and establish a single, binding interpretation for the entire circuit, the court might decide to rehear a relevant case en banc, meaning all active judges on that circuit would participate in the decision.

  How it illustrates the term: This scenario demonstrates an en banc sitting being used to ensure uniformity and consistency in legal interpretation across the entire court, preventing different panels from issuing contradictory judgments on the same legal issue.

• Example 2: Cases of Exceptional Public Importance

  A state's highest court, often called the Supreme Court, is presented with a case challenging the constitutionality of a newly enacted statewide law that significantly alters the process for voter registration. Given the profound impact this decision will have on all citizens, the integrity of elections, and the state's democratic process, the court decides that all of its justices should hear the arguments and participate in the final decision, rather than assigning it to a smaller, rotating panel. This ensures the broadest possible judicial consensus on a matter of such widespread public significance.

  How it illustrates the term: This example highlights how an en banc sitting is employed for cases that carry immense public interest or involve fundamental constitutional questions, ensuring that the entire judicial body weighs in on the outcome.

• Example 3: Reconsidering a Controversial Panel Decision

  A three-judge panel of an appellate court issues a ruling in a complex business dispute that is highly controversial and generates significant debate among other judges on the court, as well as within the legal community. The losing party petitions for a rehearing, arguing that the panel made a fundamental error in its legal reasoning. The full court, recognizing the complexity of the legal issues and the potential for a flawed decision, agrees to hear the case en banc. This allows all available judges to review the arguments and the panel's decision, potentially leading to a different outcome.

  How it illustrates the term: This demonstrates an en banc sitting as a mechanism for internal review and correction within a court, allowing the entire bench to revisit and potentially overturn a decision made by a smaller subset of its members when significant legal questions or potential errors are at stake.