Rick HasenVerified account

This means that even if the Trump Admin. never requested it, there's now a request to entire 9th Circuit to reconsider yesterdays' order /2

It takes a majority of judges to vote to hear case "en banc," and if ordered it ordinarily means 11 judges (Chief and 10 picked random) /3

although there's a procedure for the full court (25? active judges) to hear case. I don't think that's been successfully called /4

Many more D-appointed than R-appointed judges on court, but some of the D-appointed are less liberal. Still seems like long shot /5

But if it is granted, the 11-judge panel could skew more conservative than 9th Circuit as a whole, so there's a chance /6

Today's order makes both sides' briefs due 2/16. Not clear if Trump Admin could withdraw if Pres issues new EO mooting case /7

But if case gets mooted it is hard to see a vote for an en banc in any case /8

But even if 9th Circuit denies dissent, it is possible a judge will write a dissenting statement to support Trump EO on the record /9

and that might be what this is all about /10

to be clear, this could have come from any active or senior 9th Cir. judge---not likely the 3 judges on unanimous panel /12

Bottom line: just when you thought it was time for drinks Friday afternoon, there's more work to do /13 #appellatetwitter

Interesting alternative reason from @chris_j_walker to go en banc: to get rid of 3-judge panel opinion: https://twitter.com/chris_j_walker/status/830203910694518785 … /14

Why wouldn’t he have dissented in the first instance? @jacobgershman

.@Garossino @jacobgershman this would be one of the *other* 9th Circuit judges NOT on the 3 judge panel