Our newsletter begins announcements about federal en banc decisions with the phrase “And in en banc news.” And about a year ago we had an argument on the podcast on how to pronounce that fancy French-sounding phrase. Today we bring back the guests from that episode—Sam Gedge and Bob Belden—to settle the issue, once and for all. Along the way you’ll learn about how we have the Germans to thank for how we describe full sittings of the federal courts of appeals. You’ll also learn about two recent en banc cases, one from the Eleventh Circuit concerning how prisoners can sue in federal court, and one from the D.C. Circuit about how foreign students can stay in the country and get some work experience. There’s also a couple rabbit holes involving decretal language and whether a “dissental” is a thing. Register for Feb 17 panel at Case Western Reserve! Register for Feb 18 Cleveland show, Comedy is not a Crime! Register for Marc 31 conference on Meyer v. Nebraska! Buy Anthony’s book! Draft of article And in En Banc News . . . (to appear in Judicature) Judge Newman article on decretal language Wells v. Brown Washington Alliance v. DHS En banc argument episode

Andrew Ward and Bob Belden discuss a case challenging Kentucky's Certificate of Need law. They highlight the difficulties faced by two Nepali entrepreneurs trying to open a home health agency. The discussion revolves around the weaknesses of the rational basis test and the need for federal court protection of economic liberty. They also explore a case involving foreclosure and the violation of property rights. The panel delves into the history of equity and law, analyzing its impact on property rights and contracts.

Guests Bob Belden and Kirby Thomas West discuss interesting topics including a civil forfeiture case involving a letter from Alexander Hamilton, a fire on a movie set turning into a First Amendment retaliation claim, and the challenges of contesting civil forfeiture by the federal government. They also explore the mysterious disappearance and recovery of the letter, the complexities of a forfeiture case brought by the government, and the confusion surrounding adverse possession of government land.