But the panel had no disagreement on the outcome—they all voted to vacate the injunction. Heytens and Wynn held that the district judge was wrong on the merits in issuing the injunction because the 1872 Amnesty Act does not apply to Cawthorn. Richardson would have held that the district judge had no jurisdiction to issue it at all because the House is the sole judge of a candidate’s qualifications under the Constitution. It’s hard to imagine either en banc or SCOTUS review being granted on a non-outcome determinative dispute like this, and I certainly don’t think anyone in SCOTUS or in the 4th Circuit thinks the district judge actually got it right.
Also, Cawthorn’s primary loss will be certified, and this case will be moot, by the time either the en banc court or SCOTUS could possibly hear this case.