Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶25

The Ninth Circuit called for briefing on whether to rehear the case en banc, and 12 judges dissented when the court denied rehearing. Judge Bress, joined by 11 other active judges, argued that the panel’s ruling contravened the “clear statutory text” of §§1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1) and was “gravely wrong.” Id., at 1168, 1177. Judge Bea and two other senior judges noted their agreement with the dissents. Id., at 1177–1178 (Bea, J., respecting denial of reh’g en banc).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.