{{Short description|Appellate legal proceeding}} {{Italic title}} {{Distinguish|Unbanked}} In law, an '''''en banc''''' ({{IPAc-en|ˌ|a:|n|_|ˈ|b|a:|ŋ|k}}; alternatively '''''in banc''''', '''''in banco''''' or '''''in bank'''''; {{IPA|fr|ɑ̃ bɑ̃|lang}}) session is one in which all the judges of a court sit to hear a case, not just one judge or a smaller panel of judges.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Martin |first1=Jody B. |title=The Most Abused Prerogative: En Banc Review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Judicial Circuit |journal=Mississippi College Law Review |date=1993 |volume=14 |page=395}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=en banc |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/en_banc |website=Wex |publisher=Cornell Law School |access-date=17 October 2021}}</ref> For courts like the United States Courts of Appeals, in which each case is normally heard by a three-judge panel instead of the entire court, an ''en banc'' review is usually used for only very complex or important cases or when the court believes there is an especially significant issue at stake.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Clark |first1=T. S. |title=A Principal-Agent Theory of En Banc Review |journal=Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization |date=17 November 2007 |volume=25 |issue=1 |pages=55–79 |doi=10.1093/jleo/ewn008|doi-access= }}</ref> ''En banc'' is a French phrase meaning "in bench." Convening an en banc court may enhance a court’s legitimacy by ensuring the quality and consistency of its case law and by signalling broad collective ownership of outcomes by all the court’s judges.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kadlec |first=Ondřej |date=2025 |title=Managing Judicial Legitimacy: The Role of Grand Chambers in National and International Courts |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020589325101115/type/journal_article |journal=International and Comparative Law Quarterly |language=en |volume=74 |issue=3 |pages=619–647 |doi=10.1017/S0020589325101115 |issn=0020-5893|doi-access=free }}</ref>
==United States==
In the United States Supreme Court, practically all final decisions are heard and decided by all nine sitting justices (unless recused). Whereas, federal appeals courts in the United States sometimes grant rehearing to reconsider the decision of a panel of the court (consisting of only three judges) in which the case concerns a matter of exceptional public importance or the panel's decision appears to conflict with a prior decision of the court.<ref>Fed. R. App. P. 35(a).</ref> In rarer instances, an appellate court will order hearing ''en banc'' as an initial matter instead of the panel hearing it first.<ref>''[https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol111/iss2/5/ En Banc Procedure in the Federal Courts of Appeals]'', 111 U. Pa. L. Rev. 220, 223, 228 (1962).</ref>
Cases in United States courts of appeals are typically heard by three-judge panels, randomly chosen from the sitting appeals court judges of that circuit. If a party loses before a circuit panel, it may appeal for a rehearing ''en banc''. A majority of the active circuit judges must agree to hear or rehear a case ''en banc''. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure state that ''en banc'' proceedings are disfavored but may be ordered to maintain uniformity of decisions within the circuit or if the issue is exceptionally important (Fed. R. App. P. 35(a)).
Each federal circuit has its own particular rules regarding ''en banc'' proceedings. The circuit rules for the Seventh Circuit provide a process where, under certain circumstances, a panel can solicit the consent of the other circuit judges to overrule a prior decision and thus avoid the need for an ''en banc'' proceeding. Federal law provides that for courts with more than 15 judges, an ''en banc'' hearing may consist of "such number of members of its ''en banc'' courts as may be prescribed by rule of the court of appeals."<ref>{{USPL|95|486}}</ref> The Ninth Circuit, with 29 judges, uses this procedure, and its ''en banc'' court consists of 11 judges. The Ninth Circuit can theoretically rehear an ''en banc'' decision before the full 29-judge court; but as of 2022 this has never occurred, although judges have unsuccessfully called for it in nine cases.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hellman |first=Arthur D. |date=2022 |title=Liberalism Triumphant? Ideology and the En Banc Process in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals |url=https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2023&context=wmborj |journal=William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=17}}</ref> The Fifth and Sixth Circuits have 17 and 16 judges respectively, but neither has adopted a limited en banc procedure.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sadinsky |first=Alexandra |date=2014 |title=Redefining En Banc Review in the Federal Courts of Appeals |url=https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4965&context=flr |journal=Fordham Law Review |volume=82 |pages=2014}}</ref> The FISA Court sat en banc for the first time in 2017 in a case concerning bulk data collection.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Misc%2013-08%20Opinion%20November%209%202017.pdf|title=IN RE OPINIONS & ORDERS OF THIS COURT ADDRESSING BULK COLLECTION OF DATA UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.|quote=Sitting en banc for the first time in our history, we now vacate that decision.}}</ref>
Although it is uncommon and not specifically authorized by any rule or statute, federal district courts have sometimes heard cases en banc. In a 2022 article, the law professor Maggie Gardner listed over 140 potential examples, some of which later reached the Supreme Court as ''Hickman v. Taylor'', ''Mistretta v. United States'', and ''Zadvydas v. Davis''.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gardner |first=Maggie |date=2022 |title=District Court En Bancs |url=https://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Gardner_March.pdf |journal=Fordham Law Review |volume=90 |pages=1541–1609}}</ref>
== United Kingdom == The UK Supreme Court has criteria in place to determine the size of the panel that sits on any one case, and particularly important cases can be heard by a panel comprising all but one of the justices. This has been described as sitting ''en banc'' by Lady Hale, then President of the Supreme Court.<ref>[https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_181114_2b2fdc2399.pdf Should the Law Lords have left the House of Lords?]‚ The Supreme Court UK, 14 November 2018, p.10</ref>
The Supreme Court has twelve justices, and cases are ordinarily decided by panels of five. The largest possible panel is 11 of the 12 justices, to prevent a deadlock. Eleven judges may sit on a panel: * in cases where the court is being asked, or may decide, to depart from a previous decision; * in cases of high constitutional importance or great public importance; * in cases where a conflict between decisions in the House of Lords (as a court), Privy Council (as a court) and/or the Supreme Court has to be reconciled; or * in cases raising an important point in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Darbyshire|first=Penny|date=2015-05-19|title=The UK Supreme Court - is there anything left to think about?|url=http://webjcli.org/article/view/416|journal=European Journal of Current Legal Issues|language=en|volume=21|issue=1|issn=2059-0881}}</ref> {{as of|October 2019}}, only two cases have been heard by the maximum panel of 11 justices, both arising out of political events relating to Brexit: ''R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union'' ("Miller I"),<ref name="SCReuters">{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-article50-factbox-idUSKBN13P1SA|title=Factbox: Brexit case in Britain's Supreme Court – how will it work?|author=Michael Holden|date=30 November 2016|access-date=24 January 2017|work=Reuters}}</ref> which was heard by all 11 serving justices (there was one judicial vacancy at the time) and decided by an 8–3 majority, and ''R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland'' ("Miller II"), which was heard by 11 of the 12 serving justices (Lord Briggs did not sit) and decided unanimously.
== Japan == The Supreme Court of Japan, which has a total of fifteen justices, ordinarily hears cases in panels of five judges, but is required to hear cases en banc (by the "Grand Bench", 大法廷 ''daihōtei'') when ruling on most constitutional issues, when overturning a previous decision of the Supreme Court, when the five-judge panel is unable to reach a decision, and in other limited cases.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.courts.go.jp/english/judicial_sys/Court_System_of_Japan/index.html|title=裁判所｜Court System of Japan|website=www.courts.go.jp|language=ja|access-date=2017-01-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202040033/http://www.courts.go.jp/english/judicial_sys/Court_System_of_Japan/index.html|archive-date=2017-02-02|url-status=dead}}</ref>
== Australia == Appeals to the High Court of Australia (the federal supreme court of Australia) are sometimes heard by the full bench of all seven justices. Cases that are heard by the full bench include cases of constitutional significance, or where the court is being asked to overrule a previous decision, or cases that involve principles of major public importance.<ref>[https://www.nswbar.asn.au/docs/professional/prof_dev/BPC/course_files/Court%20Strcture%20Protocol.pdf NSW Bar Association]</ref>
The state supreme courts and the Federal Court of Australia often hear appeals by a "full court" of judges, but this does not normally include all the judges on the court. For example, in New South Wales, particularly important appeal cases are heard by five judges, chosen from a pool of more than a dozen appeal judges.
Some court buildings in Australia include a courtroom specifically called the "banco court", which is a large courtroom where the judges of the court can sit ''en banc'' - with ''in banco'', the Medieval Latin term, being preferred in Australia over the Norman French equivalent ''en banc''. They are used for full bench hearings, as well as ceremonies.
== France == In France, the Court of Cassation (France's highest judicial court) sometimes hears cases that represent very significant legal issues, as well as cases in which lower appeals courts have failed to apply its rulings as ordered,<ref>[https://www.dictionnaire-juridique.com/definition/assemblee-pleniere.php Dictionnaire juridique - Assemblée pléniaire]</ref> in a formation known as the ''Assemblée plénière'' (Plenary Session), but this does not include all the judges of the court (of which there can be up to 58). This consists of a nineteen-member panel composed of the Chief Justice of the Court of Cassation and three members from each of the Court's six divisions.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.courdecassation.fr/about_the_court_9256.html |title=Cour de cassation - About the Court |access-date=2020-10-08 |archive-date=2020-10-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201016193952/https://www.courdecassation.fr/about_the_court_9256.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>
==See also== * Full court
==References== {{Reflist|2}}
==Sources== * {{cite journal | last1 = Sanders | first1 = Anthony B. | last2 = Liles | first2 = Matt | date = 2023 | title = En Banc or In Bank? Take a Seat... | journal = Judicature | volume = 107 | issue = 2 | pages = 34–39 | publisher = Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke University School of Law | url=https://judicature.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/10/SANDERSLILES_Vol107No2.pdf}} * Kadlec, Ondřej (2025). "Managing Judicial Legitimacy: The Role of Grand Chambers in National and International Courts". ''International & Comparative Law Quarterly''. 74 (3): 619–647. doi:10.1017/S0020589325101115.
== External links == * {{Wiktionary-inline|en banc}} * {{Wiktionary-inline|banco}}
Category:Civil procedure Category:French legal terminology