From footnote 1 to Judge Lawrence VanDyke's dissent from the grant of rehearing en banc (recall that "dissental" is a relatively new legal term meaning "dissent from denial of rehearing en banc," which has enjoyed some popularity):
While dissentals are more common, judges on both this and other courts have, on
occasion, penned dissents from the grant of en banc review. See, e.g., Feldman v.
Ariz. Sec'y of State's Off., 841 F.3d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 2016) (O'Scannlain, J.,
dissenting from the grant of rehearing en banc); United States v. Bowen, 485 F.2d
1388, 1388 (9th Cir. 1973) (Chambers, J., same); United States v. Seale, 550 F.3d
377, 377 (5th Cir. 2008) (Smith, J., same). These disgrantles are understandably
rare because in every circuit other than ours en banc rehearing involves the full court,
where any active judge disagreeing with the court's decision to rehear the case may
ultimately express that disagreement in the en banc decision itself. But because the
Ninth Circuit's peculiar en banc procedures do not guarantee participation in the en
banc panel to all active judges, a disgrantle is the only guaranteed way a judge on
this court can publicly explain why it was inappropriate for our court to take a
particular case en banc.
I assume that "disgrantle" isn't an attempt to coin a lasting term, but a humorous play on dissental, intended to be understood in this particular context by readers. That, I think, makes it a "nonce word," defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "A word apparently used only 'for the nonce,' i.e. on one specific occasion or in one specific text or writer's works." But perhaps I'm mistaken, and it too will make its way into legal English.
The underlying case is U.S. v. Duarte; the panel opinion there held that some felons may have Second Amendment rights, and the Ninth Circuit has just decided to take the case en banc.
The post Disgrantle: A New Legal Nonce Word appeared first on Reason.com.
