Background
The American Academy of Pediatrics brought suit against Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On June 8, 2026, the district court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the Academy. A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion on June 22, 2026, apparently affecting that preliminary injunction. Uthmeier filed a motion seeking en banc reconsideration—requesting that the full court rather than just the panel review the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit granted Uthmeier’s motion for en banc reconsideration. The panel’s June 22 opinion was vacated, and the district court’s preliminary injunction was stayed pending resolution of the en banc appeal. The court ordered that the case would be heard initially en banc, with a new briefing schedule and oral argument date to be set by separate order. This outcome is procedurally significant because Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(g) specifies that “[i]nitial hearing en banc is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered.”
The decision generated substantial internal disagreement. Five judges (Hamilton, Jackson-Akiwumi, Lee, Pryor, and Maldonado) dissented from the stay of the preliminary injunction. Additionally, four judges (Lee, Jackson-Akiwumi, Pryor, and Maldonado) filed a written dissent opposing the grant of initial en banc review. Judge Lee’s dissent argued that bypassing normal panel review departs from established appellate procedure, risks inefficiency, and undermines collegiality within the court.
Key Takeaways
- Initial en banc review is procedurally disfavored under federal appellate rules and remains rare.
- The Seventh Circuit granted this extraordinary relief despite the governing rule’s discouragement of such relief.
- The district court’s preliminary injunction was stayed during pendency of the en banc appeal, suspending interim relief.
- Significant judicial disagreement existed over both the stay and the initial en banc review.
Why It Matters
The order reveals deep division within the Seventh Circuit about how to handle this appeal. The court’s decision to grant initial en banc review—contrary to federal rules disfavoring such action—signals the court views the underlying issues as exceptionally weighty. The dissenters’ concerns about departing from established procedure raise questions about what circumstances justify bypassing normal panel review.
The stay of the preliminary injunction has immediate practical consequences for the parties: it suspends the district court’s interim relief while the appeal proceeds, effectively maintaining the status quo through en banc review. For the bench and bar, the decision may shape future en banc motions and clarify (or leave ambiguous) the standards governing when initial en banc review is warranted.