On October 28, I blogged here about an important case under the Voting Rights Act, Metts v. Murphy. The First Circuit has now granted en banc review and issued a very specific order about what is to be briefed:

ORDER. Chief Judge Michael Boudin, Judge Juan R. Torruella, Judge Bruce M. Selya, Judge Sandra L. Lynch, Judge Kermit V. Lipez, Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, and Senior Judge Norman H. Stahl. The petition for rehearing en banc is granted. The panel opinion of this Court dated October 28, 2003 is withdrawn and the judgment of this Court of the same date is vacated. Oral argument is scheduled for February 4, 2004, at 2:30 pm. The parties are directed to file simultaneous supplementary briefs not to exceed twenty pages in length. The briefs should assume the familiarity of the en banc Court with the briefs already filed on this appeal and need not repeat arguments addressed therein. The supplementary brief for the defendants shall, at a minimum, address the following question: Given that Gingles preconditions were conceived primarily to address a different problem (multi-member districts) and that subsequent opinions have referred to the need to avoid applying the preconditions mechanically, why is the decision on the applicability of Gingles not better made after the plaintiffs have been allowed to develop a record both on this issue and on the totality of the circumstances test? The supplementary brief for the plaintiffs shall, at a minimum, address the following question: Recognizing that the Supreme Court has said that the Gingles preconditions are only a threshold requirement and that success also requires proof under the totality of the circumstances test, what facts do you expect to elicit through discovery or what lines of inquiry do you propose to pursue to satisfy this latter test? The parties are directed to file 15 copies of their respective briefs on or before January 5, 2004. Each side may also file a reply brief, not to exceed five pages, due on or before January 20, 2004. The attention of counsel is drawn to the requirements of Local Rule 32 as to the filing of briefs in disk form. The Court would welcome the filing of briefs amicus curiae, pursuant to the applicable local rules.

As this case is in conflict with at least one case from another circuit, the issue here is one to watch for eventual Supreme Court review. Thanks to Bill McGeveran for passing along the order.