The New York Times crossword puzzle on January 7, 2026 featured a six-letter clue that stumped solvers: “with all judges present.” The answer was EN BANC, a French legal term that refers to when every judge on an appellate court hears a case together rather than the standard three-judge panel.
What makes this crossword answer significant goes beyond wordplay. En banc hearings represent one of the rarest procedures in the federal court system. In 2010, circuit courts terminated 30,914 cases on their merits. Only 45 of those cases received en banc review.
Table of Contents
What Federal Rules Say About Full Court Hearings
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure explicitly state that en banc proceedings are “disfavored.” Courts will grant them only under three circumstances: to maintain uniformity when different panels within the same circuit have conflicting decisions, when a question holds exceptional importance, or when the court needs to overturn its own precedent.
A majority of active circuit judges must vote to grant en banc review. Most requests get denied. Federal appeals courts use three-judge panels for efficiency, handling thousands of cases annually. Convening the entire court disrupts that workflow and requires coordination among judges who may be hearing oral arguments in different cities across their circuit.
The Numbers Show How Rarely Courts Grant En Banc Review
Different circuits use the procedure at vastly different rates. The Ninth Circuit, covering nine western states with 29 judges, held 12 en banc sessions during 2024. The Second Circuit, which includes New York, maintains what judges describe as a tradition of deference to panel decisions and rarely convenes the full court.
The D.C. Circuit provides another example. Judge Douglas Ginsburg documented that the court heard approximately six cases en banc each year during the early 1990s. By the early 2000s, that number had dropped sharply. In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the court held just one en banc proceeding.
Recent Federal Circuit Cases That Required All Judges
The Federal Circuit issued its first en banc patent decision in five years during 2024. LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations addressed how courts evaluate whether a design patent is obvious. The full court overturned the Rosen-Durling test that had governed these cases for decades, replacing it with a standard that aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR International v. Telflex.
EcoFactor v. Google also went before the Federal Circuit en banc in 2024. Patent disputes generate more en banc reviews than other case types because they establish rules affecting entire industries. When the full Federal Circuit speaks on patent law, companies and lawyers across the technology and manufacturing sectors adjust their strategies accordingly.
How Courts Manage En Banc Proceedings With Large Benches
The Ninth Circuit adapted its procedure to handle its size. Federal law allows courts with more than 15 judges to establish limited en banc panels. The Ninth Circuit uses 11 judges for en banc cases rather than all 29 active judges. This compromise maintains efficiency while still providing more judicial review than a standard three-judge panel.
The Fifth Circuit has 17 judges and the Sixth Circuit has 16, but neither has adopted a limited en banc procedure. They still convene the full court when granting en banc review. Each circuit develops its own internal rules within the framework of federal appellate procedure.
Why Parties Request Rehearing En Banc After Losing
Losing before a three-judge panel doesn’t end the case. Parties can file a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel decision conflicts with circuit precedent or involves a question important enough to warrant full court review.
The clerk’s office distributes these petitions to all active judges. Any judge can call for a vote on whether to grant the petition. Without a vote being called, the petition dies. If a vote occurs, a majority of active judges must agree to rehear the case en banc.
Senior judges who have taken reduced caseloads don’t count toward the majority needed to grant en banc review, though they can participate if they sat on the original panel. This means a smaller group of active judges controls whether the full court rehears a case.
When En Banc Decisions Become The Final Word
The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions for certiorari each year but grants review in only 100 to 150 cases. For most litigants, the circuit court represents the final opportunity to change an unfavorable ruling. An en banc decision from the circuit court often ends the case because the Supreme Court will decline further review.
En banc decisions also carry more precedential weight within the circuit than panel decisions. A three-judge panel must follow earlier circuit precedent, but an en banc court can overturn that precedent. When the full court speaks, it establishes the law of the circuit with the unified voice of all active judges.
From Crossword Puzzle To Courtroom Precedent
The six letters that filled squares in the January 7 New York Times crossword represent a procedure that occurs just dozens of times each year across all federal circuits. Those rare hearings with all judges present shape how circuits interpret federal law, resolve conflicts between their own panels, and address questions that affect thousands of future cases.
Understanding en banc review matters because these decisions create binding precedent across entire regions of the country. The Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction covers all patent appeals nationwide, making its en banc decisions particularly influential. Regional circuits like the Fifth or Ninth cover multiple states, giving their en banc rulings geographic reach that extends beyond any single district court.
The next NYT crossword clue about courtroom procedures might be easier to solve, but en banc hearings will remain one of the most significant and rare events in federal appellate practice.
