holding, in a different context, that “courts must discern the meaning of ‘notwithstanding’ from the legislative history, purpose, and structure of the entire statute”
How later courts described this case
- holding, in a different context, that “courts must discern the meaning of ‘notwithstanding’ from the legislative history, purpose, and structure of the entire statute”
- explaining that whether the term “shall” is construed as directory or mandatory is dependent on an examina tion of Congressional intent
- noting that appellate jurisdiction over the entire matter would be proper as long as the court had exclusive jurisdiction over one of the challenged regulations, citing Suburban O’Hare Comm’n
- affirming Hobbs Act dismissal of claims against Maritime Administration and Coast Guard, and taking jurisdiction only of claim against Maritime Administration which had also been raised in protective petition for review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Aug. 18, 1992.
Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge; BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, and GARTH * , Circuit Judges.
The petition for rehearing filed by petitioners/appellants having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.