Earlier this year, a District Court judge in Washington state issued a "restraining order" blocking the implementation of first Trump travel/immigration ban. That decision was appealed by the government to the Ninth Circuit. The government's first step in that appeal process was to ask the Ninth Circuit to stay the restraining order (and thereby allow the ban to go into effect) pending its appeal of that order. A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, in a published opinion, denied the government's request, keeping the restraining order in place.
Thereafter, on March 8, the government filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal and the Ninth Circuit granted that motion, effectively ending the challenge to the District Court's decision.
However, one matter remained -- one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit had requested that all of the circuit's judges be polled to determine whether there should be a rehearing "en banc" on whether to vacate the published (and now moot) order of the 3-judge order upholding the restraining order. Yesterday, the ninth circuit issued an order announcing that a majority of the circuit's judges had voted against rehearing en banc, so the published order will not be vacated (and thus can still be cited in future proceedings as a precedent of the Ninth Circuit).
The court's order denying the request for an en banc hearing was accompanied by a concurring opinion supporting the 3-judge ruling and by a dissenting opinion opposing it. There is nothing inappropriate about the judges issuing those separate concurring and dissenting opinions expressing their views on whether the court should have reconsidered en banc and vacated the 3-judge order.
= new reply since forum marked as read
