What Happens in Federal Courts of Appeals, Stays in Federal Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court Stands Up for En Banc Procedure

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48162/rev.100.004

Keywords:

En banc procedure, Supreme Court, Rehearing en banc, Vidal, Court of appeals, Precedent

Abstract

The article analyzes the Argentine Supreme Court’s decision in “Vidal”, in which the highest court had to intervene because of a sustained conflict between panel III of the Federal Court of Criminal Cassation and the rest of the panels of that Court. That contradiction between panels also meant ignoring a controlling precedent from the Supreme Court itself (“Palero”). The work evidences, through the analysis of the Court’s discourse and of the precedents on point, certain deficiencies within mechanisms of uniformity of jurisprudence in federal courts as well as the unwillingness of judges to overcome them. 

Author Biography

Florencia Ratti, Universidad Católica Argentina UCA (Argentina)

Becaria posdoctoral del CONICET. Doctora en Ciencias Jurídicas (summa cum laude, Universidad Católica Argentina UCA). Docente en las cátedras de Derechos Humanos y Taller de Análisis de Jurisprudencia (UCA). Directora del proyecto de investigación IUS: La sentencia como precedente: metodología y aplicación práctica.

Published

2022-12-26

How to Cite

Ratti, F. (2022). What Happens in Federal Courts of Appeals, Stays in Federal Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court Stands Up for En Banc Procedure. República Y Derecho, 8(8), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.48162/rev.100.004