The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 22 notice modified its internal operating procedures concerning petitions for en banc rehearings. The stylistic update says that if at any time before a rehearing vote takes place, a majority of the panel that issued the decision in question wishes to make major substantive changes to a decision or give further consideration to the petition, the panel will inform the en banc court that the panel wants to take the petition back for further action. "Upon such notice, any pending poll will be withdrawn," the new rule said. "The panel shall expeditiously inform the full court of any such action on the petition, and if the panel grants less than all of the relief requested, any judge may request a response to the petition for rehearing en banc or a poll within 10 business days of the panel’s notification to the full court."

The Senate voted 58-33 on July 14 to advance the nomination of J. Michelle Childs to serve as a circuit judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. The vote to invoke cloture sets up Childs' confirmation to the district court and revealed bipartisan support for Childs' nomination. Currently, Childs serves as a district judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, where she's sat since 2010.

The Supreme Court's key ruling that called into question federal agencies' authority to regulate major sectors of the economy if not explicitly delegated by Congress could positively impact plaintiffs in the massive case against the Section 301 China tariffs, Christopher Kane, partner at Simon Gluck, said in a LinkedIn post. Kane said he thought that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its statutorily delegated authority by not engaging in the mandated deliberations before imposing the tariffs. Since the tariffs rise to the level of affecting a major segment of the U.S. economy, the West Virginia v. EPA decision would reverse the USTR's actions, Kane said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit updated its protocols to allow counsel to bring up to two attendees for in-person oral arguments, the court announced June 21. Attendees must comply with testing or medical documentation and masking requirements while in the courthouse. Under requirements updated last month, counsel and attendees must present documentation of a negative polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 test, a negative rapid antigen test, or a positive test result along with a signed letter from a licensed healthcare provider saying the party has been cleared for travel (see 2206140024).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued revised protocols for in-person oral arguments beginning with the July court sitting and until further notice. The new rules "clarify and expand the testing or medical documentation available" to arguing counsel allowing them to enter the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in Philadelphia as part of its November session, the court announced June 3. This is in addition to its regular sitting in Washington, D.C. Arguments will take place at Drexel University Nov. 1, the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University Nov. 2, and James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse Nov. 3. The court will post the scheduled cases when the November session is finalized. Nov. 1 arguments also will be held at Villanova University in Villanova, Pennsylvania.

Judge Judith Rogers, judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, will take senior status on Sept. 1, according to a future vacancies posting on the U.S. Courts website. Rogers notified the courts administration system to her impending senior status on June 2. The judge was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 1994. She previously served as an zssistant U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia and worked at DOJ in the deputy attorney general's office and the Criminal Division.

The Judicial Conference of the U.S., the federal court system's policymaking body, supports a proposal to make searches free on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service -- the means by which electronic public access to court documents is provided. The proposal, brought by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, would make searches free for noncommercial users but would require "extensive development work to the current PACER system and all operational versions of the Case Management/Electronic Case Files system," the proposal said. The Judicial Conference endorsed the proposal in a March meeting, according to a report made public recently.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a May 4 errata order corrected three small errors in an opinion it issued April 14. The order changed the letter or number for three of the opinion's headings. "A. Mootness" was changed to "B. Mootness," "A. The Merits" was changed to "C. The Merits" and "II. Claims as to the Final Dumping Determination" was changed to "III. Claims as to the Final Dumping Determination" (Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2232).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released new protocols for in-person arguments beginning with the June 2022 court session. The rules still require that counsel and attendees don N-95, KN-95 or KF-94 masks, regardless of vaccination status, and provide a negative PCR COVID-19 test within the 72 hours before the oral argument -- the tests must be done after any commercial travel to the Washington, D.C., area. The court also expressed its "strong preference" for in-person oral argument proceedings, adding that the court will not hear motions to expand access to attend oral argument proceedings beyond counsel and one necessary attendee.