The court’s order is here. The order provides: “The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.” My pro bono amicus letter supporting en banc review in this case is here.
What is the significance of this grant? Here is what I wrote on April 5:

While the grant of en banc in Padilla would not preclude a district court judge from holding, as the district court did in the Monterey case, that initiative or recall petitions must be in multiple languages to comply with section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, I would think that judges would be much less likely to do so with no (citable) appellate court precedent so holding, and two cases from other circuits reaching the contrary conclusion. At the very least, the grant of en banc rehearing in Padilla would signal to lower court judges that a number of Ninth Circuit judges have serious questions about the three-judge panel ruling.