En Banc Federal Courts Provide Example for Fractured Supreme Court

The Supreme Court hears only 75 or so cases a year. The federal appeals courts—one level below the Supreme Court— decide several thousand appeals every year. In rare cases—where a matter of great importance is before the court, such as the travel ban or the Affordable Health Care Act’s constitutionality— the circuit court sits en banc. This means that instead of a three member panel of judges, all or many of the judges hear the appeal.

The Ninth Circuit (California and western states) has 29 judges. Under their rules, 11 judges can sit en banc.

The Sixth Circuit (Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee) has only 16 judges but under its rules all 16 participate in an appellate ruling.

The point is that they use many judges to decide really important cases.

Why not for our Supreme Court?

Our nation is rapidly moving to the point of seeing the Supreme Court poisoned by partisan outrage. It goes both ways.

Let’s dilute our Supreme Court and use our longstanding en banc structure as a guide.

Add more justices (a federal statute allows for this).

Dilute the effect of a single nomination.

En banc rulings are rarely decided by one vote. 
The new structure-- adding more judges-- would lessen these all-or-nothing nomination battles.