Be interesting to see what happens next.
A judge from the 9th did that? 
Yep.
Reagan appointee I believe.
The panel consisted of two Circuit Judges from the Ninth Circuit and a District Judge from the S.D.N.Y. sitting by designation.
Smith is an active Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit and a G W. Bush appointee. Wallace is a Senior Circuit Judge of the Ninth Judge and a Nixon appointee. Batts is a Senior District Judge of the S.D.N.Y. and also a Clinton appointee. She is also a lesbian African-American.
Link to the Opinion of the Court and dissent below:
Link to the Wikipedia articles of the panel members:
Senior United States District Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California, sitting at San Diego, issued the original injunction in the case that was the focus of the Ninth Circuit panel’s decision. He is a George W. Bush appointee, very recently in senior status.
His Wikipedia article is below:
Probably nothing. It is unlikely that the SCOTUS would accept the case even if California appeals.
A nice story, really worked his way up the scholastic ladder from the bottom up.
It could go to the full 9th and be overturned.
Unlikely for this particular decision, as it is what is known as an “unpublished” “non-precedential” decision, mostly procedural in nature. When the case reaches a final disposition at the trial level and if the panel makes a similar “published” “precedential” decision, than we might see an attempt to overturn it en banc.
You sir, are a veritable fountain of knowledge on the subject of ephors.
B[quote=“SneakySFDude, post:8, topic:7883, full:true”]
It could go to the full 9th and be overturned.
[/quote]
The three judge panel is the “full” 9th. That’s how the Disrict Courts work. There are 29 Judges in the 9th Circuit … they don’t meet in their entirety to hear cases.
No it isn’t. Hush.
You are in error.
-
The Ninth is a Court of Appeal (colloquially known as a Circuit Court) not a District Court, which are trial courts.
-
Normally appeals are heard by three Judge panels and final disposition of appeals in a case is generally stands as precedent in that particular circuit.
-
However, the losing party in a case can appeal to the full circuit en banc. (and in some cases, the judges of the circuit can demand en banc proceedings without an appeal being made).
-
In the Federal Circuit, the DC Circuit, and the Circuits numbered 1 to 8, 10 and 11, en banc panels consist of all active Judges of the Circuit, plus any senior Judges or designated judges that sat on the three judge panel.
-
In the 9th Circuit, normal en banc proceedings are held before an 11 Judge en banc panel, which would include the three Judges of the original panel, plus 8 other active service Judges randomly chosen from the active Judges of the 9th Circuit.
-
Rarely, the 9th Circuit holds true en banc proceedings, which would be the same as discussed in paragraph 4.
En banc proceedings are relatively rare in any circuit and generally only occur after a case has reached final disposition at the trial level.
Yeah Samm, what he said! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Thank you for the added detail, and I stand corrected on the panels of more than 3 judges that sometimes rule, but all 29 Judges of the 9th Circuit Court would constitute the “full court.” They never all sit together en masse to decide cases. Remember “full court” was the description I was contesting, not “En banc.”
What he said was not what you said. Smoke that. 
I do believe it has been many long years since the Ninth Circuit last sat for a full court en banc proceeding, probably at least as far back as the 1980’s. But they CAN do so. They just haven’t felt the need to do so in a long time and the logistics of holding such a proceeding likely discourages any attempt at doing so.
It actually is one of the major arguments for breaking up the Ninth Circuit.
