How many judges hear an appeal in federal court?

Three judges normally are assigned to decide each federal appeal, except under certain circumstances. If two of the three judges agree on the decision on the appeal, that becomes the decision of the federal appeals court. Very rarely, the federal appeals court will grant a motion for rehearing the appeal (by the same three judges) or a rehearing “en banc”, by all or most of the active judges on that particular Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under federal law, an appeal can never be decided by only one judge. Doing so would defeat the purpose of the appeal court’s ability to review cases. By requiring multiple judges to hear a case, it ensures a better mix of judges and ideally an efficient means of eliminating any prejudices.

The federal appeals court is a busy place. In fact, there are actually 13 United States Appeals courts all of whom are constantly reviewing cases from the trial court. As is stated by federal law, every aggrieved party has an appeal by right, so the appeals court remains a very busy place. With so many cases to review and hear, it is no surprise that most cases are reviewed or “heard” by three appeal judges in federal appeals court.

There are times when more than just three judges hear a case. En banc is a French term that means, on the bench. It is used to describe cases where the entire group of federal judges for that district hear the case, instead of simply a panel. In cases that involve complex matters of law or have serious social implications, the court will order an en banc rehearing. In addition, an en banc rehearing can be granted if the panel’s decision was somehow incorrect. En banc reviews may be made at the request of either the parties or the panel, but are not guaranteed.

Case Studies: Federal Court Appeals and Judge Assignments

Case Study 1: Smith v. United States – Three-Judge Panel Decision

In the case of Smith v. United States, a three-judge panel was assigned to hear the appeal. The appellant, John Smith, presented his arguments, and after careful deliberation, Judges Adams, Baker, and Carter reached a majority decision.

As per federal law, when two out of the three judges agree, their decision becomes the ruling of the federal appeals court. This case study exemplifies the standard process of a federal appeal being heard and decided by a three-judge panel.

Case Study 2: Thompson v. State of California – Rehearing the Appeal En Banc

In the case of Thompson v. State of California, an appeal was initially heard by a three-judge panel comprising Judges Davis, Edwards, and Foster. However, due to the case’s complexity and significant legal implications, the defense team filed a request for an en banc rehearing.

The request was granted, and the entire group of federal judges for the district, including Chief Judge Gibson and Judges Hernandez, Irving, and Johnson, heard the case. This case study demonstrates how an en banc rehearing can be ordered to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of complex cases or those with substantial social implications.

Case Study 3: Miller v. City of New York – En Banc Rehearing Correcting a Panel’s Decision

In the case of Miller v. City of New York, a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Lee, Martinez, and Nelson rendered a decision that was later determined to be incorrect. Recognizing the error, both parties filed a request for an en banc rehearing.

The en banc rehearing was granted by the federal appeals court, allowing all or most of the active judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals, including Judges Owens, Parker, and Quinn, to reconsider the case. This case study illustrates how an en banc rehearing can be ordered to address and rectify a panel’s erroneous decision.