Eight cases are
pending on rehearing en banc
before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit. This
column examines the issues presented
in these cases and, where sufficient
information exists, predicts
how the Third Circuit is likely
to rule.
The Third Circuit's internal
rules provide that rehearing
en banc will be ordered "[i]f
a majority of the active judges
of the court who are not disqualified,
provided that the judges who
are not disqualified constitute
a majority of the judges who
are in regular active service,
votes for rehearing en banc."
3d Cir. IOP 9.5.9. Once rehearing
en banc is granted, all active,
non-recused Third Circuit judges
participate in deciding the
case. Any senior Third Circuit
judges who were on the three-judge
panel originally assigned to
the appeal may also elect to
participate. If a district judge
or an appellate judge visiting
from another circuit was on
the original panel, however,
that judge is not permitted
to participate further in deciding
the appeal.
Cases are reheard en banc in
the Third Circuit for a variety
of reasons, and the twelve active
judges currently serving on
that court do not share an entirely
uniform view of the reasons
why an appeal should be reheard
en banc. Nonetheless, experience
reveals certain patterns in
the cases that the court takes
en banc.
Before a panel of Third Circuit
judges issues a published opinion,
the opinion is circulated to
all active judges. The appeal
can be taken en banc at that
stage if sufficient votes for
rehearing are received. Typically,
a case will not be voted en
banc before the panel's opinion
issues unless the panel's decision
contains a dissent or explains
that the panel wishes to reach
a result in conflict with an
earlier Third Circuit decision
that the panel views as incorrectly
decided.
If a panel consisting of three
active Third Circuit judges
has reached a unanimous, but
not clearly wrong, ruling with
which a non-panel member disagrees,
it is unlikely that the non-panel
member will vote to take the
case en banc before the panel's
opinion issues. If the decision
later draws a rehearing petition,
the non-panel member who disagreed
with the result may then attempt
to persuade other non-panel
members to vote for rehearing
en banc.
In the Third Circuit, two categories
of cases are most likely to
go en banc: (1) those in which
a visiting judge or a district
judge provides the crucial second
vote for the panel's result
over the dissent of an active
or senior Third Circuit judge;
and (2) those in which a previous
Third Circuit panel has, in
retrospect, decided an important
issue incorrectly.
The case summaries that follow
are listed in the order in which
these cases have been, or are
scheduled to be, reargued before
the en banc Third Circuit.
Death Penalty:
On May 23, 2001, the Third Circuit
heard reargument en banc in
Riley v. Taylor,
No. 98-9009. In December 1982,
a Delaware state court jury
found James W. Riley guilty
of felony murder in the killing
of a liquor store owner and
sentenced Riley to death. In
August 1991, Riley filed a habeas
corpus petition in federal district
court. The district court ultimately
denied the petition, and Riley
appealed to the Third Circuit
in September 1998.
Riley's appeal was argued in
November 1999 before a panel
consisting of Circuit Judges
Dolores K. Sloviter, Samuel
A. Alito, Jr. and Senior Circuit
Judge Walter K. Stapleton. In
an opinion by Judge Alito, in
which Judge Stapleton joined,
the panel rejected all of Riley's
arguments and affirmed the district
court's decision. Riley
v. Taylor, 2001 WL
43597 (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2001)
(vacated on reh'g en banc).
Judge Sloviter dissented, maintaining
that she would rule in Riley's
favor on two issues.
First, Judge Sloviter asserted
that the prosecution employed
its peremptory jury strikes
in a manner that unlawfully
excluded black jurors. Second,
she asserted that the prosecutor's
closing argument unlawfully
informed the jury that its imposition
of the death penalty was unimportant
because the Delaware Supreme
Court would be the final arbiter
of the defendant's fate.
The Third Circuit's order granting
rehearing limited en banc review
to these two issues. Riley
v. Taylor, 237 F.3d
348 (3d Cir. 2001) (order).
Judge Marjorie O. Rendell has
recused herself from considering
this case, and Senior Judge
Stapleton has elected to take
part in the en banc proceedings.
The outcome of this case is
difficult to predict, but my
best guess is that the Court
will affirm the district court's
ruling by a narrow margin, perhaps
7-5 or 8-4. A document recently
posted on the Third Circuit's
Web site listing the status
of all appeals that have been
under submission for more than
90 days reveals that the majority
opinion in this case has been
circulated to the court for
review. Thus, a decision in
this appeal may issue fairly
soon.
Drugs and Sentencing:
On March 23, 2001, the Third
Circuit also heard reargument
en banc in United States
v. Vazquez, No. 99-3845.
The original panel assigned
to this case consisted of Circuit
Judges Anthony J. Scirica, Julio
M. Fuentes and Senior Circuit
Judge Leonard I. Garth. The
case was argued before the panel
in December 2000 and was voted
en banc before the panel's decision
issued. All active Third Circuit
judges and Judge Garth are participating
in the en banc court's review.
A jury in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania convicted Vazquez
for his role in a drug trafficking
conspiracy. Notably, however,
the district judge, rather than
the jury, determined the amount
of cocaine involved in the conspiracy.
The drug quantity determination
caused Vazquez to be sentenced
to 292 months in prison. At
trial, Vazquez did not assert
that drug quantity should have
been determined by the jury
rather than the trial judge.
The appeal presents two questions:
(1) whether the manner in which
Vazquez was sentenced violates
Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),
which held that most facts causing
a sentencing enhancement in
excess of the statutory maximum
sentence for a crime must be
determined by a jury beyond
a reasonable doubt; and (2)
if so, whether the violation
amounts to plain error. The
importance of this appeal to
the federal government is underscored
by the fact that Deputy Solicitor
General Michael R. Dreeben argued
the case en banc for the United
States.
Based on a review of the en
banc oral argument transcript
and of similar cases from other
circuits, I predict that the
government will prevail in Vazquez,
although the ruling may not
be unanimous.
Guns for Convicted Felons:
On November 28, 2001, the Third
Circuit will hear reargument
en banc in Pontarelli
v. United States Dep't of
Treasury, No. 00-1268.
The case was originally assigned
to a panel consisting of Circuit
Judges Maryanne Trump Barry,
Thomas L. Ambro and Senior Circuit
Judge Max Rosenn and went en
banc after submission to the
panel on the briefs but before
the panel issued a ruling. All
active judges and Senior Judge
Rosenn are participating in
the rehearing en banc.
Pontarelli presents
the question whether Congress
-- which has refused to appropriate
funds that would allow the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
to investigate applications
from released convicted felons
who wish to have restored their
right to possess firearms --
has thereby precluded federal
courts from adjudicating suits
brought by individuals who are
asking for restoration of their
right to possess firearms.
The Third Circuit became the
first federal appellate court
to address this issue in Rice
v. United States, Dep't
of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms,
68 F.3d 702 (3d Cir. 1995),
ruling that Congress's lack
of appropriations did not repeal
the law allowing convicted felons
to seek such relief and did
not preclude judicial review.
The Fifth Circuit became the
next appellate court to rule
on this issue, and it reached
a directly contrary result.
United States v. McGill,
74 F.3d 64 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 519 U.S. 821 (1996).
Thereafter, the Second, Sixth,
Ninth and Tenth Circuits joined
with the Fifth in rejecting
the Third Circuit's ruling in
Rice.
Thus, when the Third Circuit
granted rehearing en banc in
Pontarelli on April
30, 2001, it seemed all but
certain that Rice would
be overruled. It does not seem
that certain now, however. The
Fifth Circuit on June 20, 2001
abandoned its decision in McGill
and sided with Rice
in holding that Congress's failure
to appropriate funds did not
suspend the law and did not
preclude judicial review. Bean
v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
& Firearms, 253 F.3d 234
(5th Cir. 2001). The outcome
in Pontarelli is impossible
to predict, but this issue cries
out for resolution by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Section 1983 and Private
Party Liability: On
November 28, 2001, the Third
Circuit will also hear reargument
en banc in Crissman
v. Dover Downs Entm't Inc.,
No. 00-5178. The case presents
the question whether a privately-owned
racetrack that banned several
race horse trainers can be held
liable to the trainers under
federal civil rights law because
the state of Delaware was heavily
involved in the track's video
lottery operation and thus had
a "symbiotic relationship" with
the track.
Crissman went en banc after
a panel consisting of Circuit
Judge Theodore A. McKee, Senior
Circuit Judge Rosenn and visiting
Senior Circuit Judge Richard
D. Cudahy of the Seventh Circuit
unanimously ruled, in an opinion
by Judge Rosenn, that a sufficient
nexus existed between the state
and the racetrack to allow the
track to be held liable under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Crissman
v. Dover Downs Entm't Inc.,
239 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 2001)
(vacated on reh'g en banc).
Circuit Judges Jane R. Roth
and Ambro have recused themselves
from the rehearing en banc,
but Senior Judge Rosenn will
participate.
The result the panel reached
in Crissman threatens such a
profound expansion of when private
parties will be subject to liability
as state actors under the federal
civil rights laws that it is
unlikely to attract the backing
of a majority of the en banc
court. I thus predict that the
en banc court will disagree
with the panel's ruling and
will affirm the trial court's
dismissal of the plaintiffs'
Section 1983 claims.
Medicaid Reimbursement
to Pennsylvania Pharmacies:
On November 28, 2001, the Third
Circuit will also hear reargument
en banc in Pennsylvania
Pharmacists Ass'n v. Houstoun,
No. 00-1898. A class of Pennsylvania-based
pharmacies sued under Section
1983 to challenge the legality
of Pennsylvania's prescription
drug reimbursement rates for
Medicaid recipients.
The case was argued before a
panel consisting of Circuit
Judges Alito and McKee and visiting
Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Arthur
L. Alarcon and went en banc
before the panel issued its
decision. Although the trial
court's ruling is reported,
Pennsylvania Pharmacists
Ass'n v. Houstoun,
2000 WL 730344 (E.D. Pa. June
7, 2000), it is not entirely
clear why this case went en
banc. An earlier Third Circuit
ruling in a related case did,
however, note the existence
of a circuit split on the meaning
of a provision of the Medicaid
Act at issue in the en banc
appeal. Rite Aid of Pa.,
Inc. v. Houstoun,
171 F.3d 842 (3d Cir. 1999).
Class Action versus
Arbitration: On November
29, 2001, the Third Circuit
will hear reargument en banc
in In re Cendant Corp. Litig.
(Davidson), No. 00-2185.
This case presents the question
whether two individuals who
owned a company that later merged
into Cendant were members of
the plaintiff class in a settled
securities class action against
Cendant and whether they could
pursue overlapping claims in
their arbitration against Cendant
pending in California. A New
Jersey district court ruled
that the individuals were class
members and enjoined the arbitration,
even though a California-based
federal court had previously
ruled that the arbitration should
go forward.
The appeal was assigned to a
panel consisting of Circuit
Judges Sloviter and Ambro and
Senior Circuit Judge Garth.
On May 9, 2001, the panel ruled
2-1 that the district court
correctly determined that the
individuals were members of
the class and correctly enjoined
arbitration of claims at issue
in the class action. Judge Ambro
wrote the panel opinion, in
which Judge Sloviter joined.
Judge Garth wrote a passionate
dissent in which he argued that
the individuals should be allowed
to arbitrate their claims in
full and that the individuals
were not class members.
Judge Garth is participating
in the rehearing en banc, but
Judges Alito, Roth, Rendell
and Barry are recused. This
case defies easy prediction,
but the fact that five of the
eight non-recused active judges
voted to take the case en banc
indicates that Judge Garth's
position may prevail on rehearing.
Double Jeopardy and
Related Bad Acts: On
February 13, 2002, the Third
Circuit will hear reargument
en banc in United States
v. Pharis, No. 00-2855.
The case was originally pending
before a panel consisting of
Circuit Judges Sloviter and
Fuentes and Senior Circuit Judge
Robert E. Cowen and went en
banc before the panel issued
an opinion.
The defendants in this mail
fraud prosecution moved to exclude
certain evidence, and on the
eve of their jury trial the
district court granted the motion.
The government moved for reconsideration,
and during the trial the district
court issued an order denying
reconsideration but clarifying
its original ruling. The government
filed an immediate appeal, which
led the trial court to stay
the case and dismiss the jury.
The defendants argue in their
very powerful appellate brief
that the district court's dismissal
of the jury caused jeopardy
to attach, barring a retrial,
and that appellate jurisdiction
over the government's appeal
is lacking. The defendants appear
to have the stronger arguments
on these points. The government,
however, appears to have a stronger
argument that the district court
abused its discretion or committed
an error of law in preventing
the government from introducing
the evidence at issue in the
appeal. All active judges and
Senior Judge Cowen are participating
in the rehearing en banc.
Social Security Disability
Benefits: The final
en banc case pending in the
Third Circuit, also slated for
oral argument on February 13,
2002, is Thomas v.
Commissioner of Social Security,
00-3506. Pauline Thomas has
appealed from the government's
decision denying her claim for
social security disability benefits.
This case was originally assigned
to a panel consisting of Circuit
Judges Alito and Rendell and
Senior District Judge William
W. Schwarzer of the Northern
District of California. No panel
opinion ever issued, and the
parties' appellate briefs do
not provide any indication why
this case was selected for rehearing
en banc. All active Third Circuit
judges other than Judge Barry
are participating in the rehearing.
Judge Barry is recused because
the case was pending before
her for a short time while she
served as a district judge.
Update: The
Ninth Circuit, in a lengthy
and scholarly opinion by Circuit
Judge Alex Kozinski, recently
upheld the constitutionality
of its local rule prohibiting
citation to unpublished opinions.
Hart v. Massanari,
2001 WL 1111647 (9th Cir. Sept.
24, 2001). While Hart
casts some doubt on the historical
underpinnings of the Eighth
Circuit's opinion in Anastasoff
v. United States, 223
F.3d 898, vacated as moot
on reh'g en banc, 235 F.3d
1054 (8th Cir. 2000), I continue
to believe that federal appellate
courts are not at liberty to
make new law in an unpublished
opinion and then deny that opinion
precedential effect in a later
appeal raising the identical
issue.
This
article is reprinted with permission
from the October 8, 2001 issue
of The Legal Intelligencer ©
2001 NLP IP Company.