The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied a request for en banc rehearing in *Bates v. Pakseresht*, effectively ending this phase of litigation between Jessica Bates and multiple Oregon Department of Human Services officials.
The court issued a brief order on Feb. 13, stating that a judge of the court sua sponte requested a vote on whether to rehear the case en banc. After the vote was taken, the matter failed to receive a majority of the votes from nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration, according to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40.
The case, designated as No. 23-4169, originated in the U.S. District Court under case number 2:23-cv-00474-AN. Bates served as the plaintiff-appellant, challenging the actions of several high-ranking Oregon Department of Human Services officials in their official capacities.
The defendants-appellees included Director Fariborz Pakseresht, Deputy Director Liesl Wendt, and Aprille Flint-Gerner, who served as Interim Director of the Oregon Department of Human Services Child Welfare Division. The case also named Rebecca Garrison, the certification supervisor for the Oregon Department of Human Services office in Malheur County, and Cecilia Garcia, a certification officer for the same county office.
The three-judge panel that originally heard the case consisted of Circuit Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Richard R. Clifton, and Daniel A. Bress. Their decision, which the court has now designated "FOR PUBLICATION," will remain the final word on the matter unless further appeals are pursued.
En banc review represents a significant procedural step in federal appellate litigation. When a case is reheard en banc, the entire complement of active judges on the circuit court, rather than just a three-judge panel, considers the matter. This process is reserved for cases of exceptional importance or those involving questions of law that merit consideration by the full court.
The Ninth Circuit, which covers nine western states plus Hawaii and two Pacific territories, is the largest federal appellate circuit. With nearly 30 active judges, securing a majority vote for en banc consideration requires substantial support among the judiciary.
The fact that a judge sua sponte requested the en banc vote indicates that at least one member of the court believed the case presented issues worthy of full court consideration. However, the failure to achieve majority support suggests that most judges were satisfied with the panel's resolution of the legal questions presented.
Child welfare cases often involve complex constitutional questions regarding due process, equal protection, and the balance between state authority and individual rights. The Oregon Department of Human Services, like similar agencies nationwide, operates under federal and state oversight in areas including child protection, family services, and certification processes for various programs.
Malheur County, located in eastern Oregon along the Idaho border, is a rural area where local Department of Human Services offices handle a range of social services. The involvement of both supervisory and line-level certification staff as defendants suggests the case may have centered on administrative decisions or processes within the county office.
The original district court case was filed in 2023, indicating relatively recent events gave rise to the litigation. Federal civil rights cases against state officials in their official capacities typically invoke 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which allows individuals to sue for violations of constitutional rights under color of state law.
With en banc rehearing denied, Bates' legal options become more limited. She could potentially seek Supreme Court review through a petition for writ of certiorari, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of such petitions for full consideration.
The denial also means that whatever legal precedent the three-judge panel established in its published opinion will remain binding within the Ninth Circuit. Published opinions carry precedential weight and must be followed by district courts and future three-judge panels within the circuit's jurisdiction.
For the Oregon Department of Human Services and the named officials, the denial represents a conclusion to this particular challenge. The agency can continue operating under existing policies and procedures without needing to address potential changes that might have resulted from en banc reconsideration.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between individual rights and state administrative authority in the child welfare context. These disputes often involve complex factual scenarios and competing interpretations of constitutional protections, making them candidates for appellate review.
While the specific claims and legal theories in *Bates v. Pakseresht* remain unclear from the limited order text, the involvement of multiple departmental levels suggests systemic rather than isolated concerns may have been at issue.
The February 2026 filing date indicates this represents current appellate activity, with the legal process having moved relatively quickly from the 2023 district court filing through the appeals process to the en banc consideration stage.