Background
The American Academy of Pediatrics filed suit against James Uthmeier, the Florida Attorney General. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the Academy on June 8, 2026. A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion on June 22, 2026. The defendant-appellant then moved for the full court to take the case en banc rather than proceed with the panel decision.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit granted the motion for en banc reconsideration. The court vacated the panel opinion issued June 22, 2026. The court stayed the district court’s preliminary injunction pending resolution of the appeal and issuance of the court’s mandate.
The court ordered that the appeal will be heard initially en banc—meaning all active judges of the circuit will participate rather than the default three-judge panel. The court will issue a new briefing schedule and set a date for oral argument by separate order.
Key Takeaways
- Initial en banc review, while permitted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(g), is disfavored and extraordinary.
- Five judges dissented from granting the motion for initial en banc review, arguing the panel process produces a better record and more efficient appellate review.
- The preliminary injunction is stayed pending full court consideration, meaning the status quo changes while the appeal proceeds.
- The dissenting judges would have allowed the preliminary injunction to remain in effect during the appellate process.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the tension in federal appellate practice over when the full court should intervene before a three-judge panel completes its work. The majority’s decision to take the case en banc immediately reflects the case’s perceived significance, while the dissent warns that bypassing the panel process undermines established appellate procedures designed to focus issues and promote efficiency. The stay of the preliminary injunction alters the practical effect of the district court’s ruling during the pendency of appeal.
The case also demonstrates how divisions within an appellate court can emerge even before oral argument, with judges disagreeing fundamentally about whether and when en banc intervention serves the interests of justice and proper procedure.