​

Yes, but the procedure depends on who changed and why. Supreme Court Rule 35 automatically substitutes a successor for a public officer sued in an official capacity, while death of an individual party generally requires a motion by an authorized representative and carries a six-month abatement risk. A merger, conversion, assignment, asset sale, dissolution, or bankruptcy reorganization is different. Rule 35 does not automatically make every acquiring or reorganized company th

Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court may—and sometimes must—resolve a genuinely jurisdictional question before reaching the issue emphasized in a certiorari petition. But the Court will distinguish a true limit on judicial power from a waivable claim-processing rule, a merits defense, or a new issue that falls outside the Question Presented. The practical result may be dismissal, vacatur, remand, supplemental briefing, or a decision that the Court or a lower federal court lacked juris

Yes—but the correct procedure depends on who changed, what legal interest transferred, and when the change occurred. A successor public officer sued in an official capacity is ordinarily substituted automatically under U.S. Supreme Court Rule 35.3; a reorganized company, merger survivor, assignee, or asset purchaser generally must establish that it is the proper party and that a live Article III controversy remains. Substitution is therefore more than a caption correction. It

A U.S. Supreme Court emergency application is filed with the Clerk but addressed to the Justice assigned to the circuit from which the case arises. For a stay or bail application, that Circuit Justice may act individually or refer the matter to the full Court; if the Justice individually denies relief, the applicant may sometimes renew the same application to another Justice, but renewed applications are expressly disfavored. A referral is the Justice’s own submission of the

When a certiorari petition is distributed for conference, the Clerk has placed it on a conference list and forwarded the relevant filings to the Justices’ Chambers for consideration at the identified conference. A relist generally means the petition remained pending after one conference and was distributed for another; a rescheduling ordinarily means the petition was moved from its original conference before consideration. None of these docket entries, standing alone, means t

Yes. Under Supreme Court Rule 13.5, a Justice may extend the deadline to file a petition for a writ of certiorari by no more than 60 days for good cause, but the application must be made before the petition deadline and ordinarily must reach the Clerk at least 10 days before that deadline. An extension is not automatic and the Rule expressly states that an application is not favored. It gives counsel additional preparation time; it does not stay the judgment or mandate, cure

Yes, but the answer differs sharply between federal and state-court cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has statutory authority to review a case in a federal court of appeals before or after judgment, yet it ordinarily declines interlocutory review unless exceptional circumstances justify immediate intervention; a state-court case generally must satisfy the stricter final-judgment requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1257. A ruling that is immediately appealable in a lower appellate court is

An organization should file an amicus brief concerning a U.S. Supreme Court emergency application only when it can promptly provide distinct, reliable, and decision-relevant material that the parties have not already presented. Supreme Court Rule 37.4 expressly discourages emergency-application amicus briefs because these proceedings are highly time-sensitive; filing merely to repeat a party’s position can burden the Court rather than help it. The strongest emergency amici us

A company can protect sensitive material by first asking whether the information needs to be filed at all, then using required personal-identifier redactions or a narrowly tailored motion for leave to file material under seal under Supreme Court Rule 34.7. A lower-court seal does not automatically guarantee continued sealing in the U.S. Supreme Court, and material containing sealed information—including related public redacted copies—must not be submitted through the Court’s

The respondent should immediately shift from opposing review to defending the judgment on the merits. That requires reading the grant order precisely, controlling the new briefing and joint-appendix deadlines, identifying every valid ground for affirmance, reviewing the complete record, and deciding how merits-stage amici, stays, oral argument, and possible remand will be handled. A grant does not mean the petitioner will win. It does mean that the cert-stage strategy is over

A U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief may cite reliable historical materials, statutes, public records, scholarship, scientific research, government reports, industry data, and institutional experience when they illuminate the legal question or the broader operation of a proposed rule. But an amicus ordinarily cannot use extra-record material to prove disputed facts about the parties, repair a missing evidentiary foundation, establish standing, or convert an appellate case into a

Yes. An unpublished opinion, a per curiam affirmance, or even a judgment without an explanatory opinion can potentially be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The governing statutes authorize review of qualifying judgments or decrees; they do not make publication, precedential status, a named author, or a written explanation an absolute jurisdictional prerequisite. The absence of reasoning nevertheless can make certiorari substantially harder. Counsel may need to establish wh

Sometimes—but the answer differs sharply between federal and state cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1), the Supreme Court may review a case in a federal court of appeals “before or after” judgment, while 28 U.S.C. § 1257 ordinarily limits review of state-court cases to final judgments or decrees from the highest state court in which a decision could be had. Even when jurisdiction may exist, the Court usually prefers a fully developed, final judgment. A party must distinguish jur

Yes—but only if the original certiorari deadline has not expired. Under U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13.5, a Circuit Justice may grant no more than 60 additional days for good cause, and the application ordinarily must be filed at least 10 days before the petition is due. An extension is not automatic, does not establish that the case is certworthy, and does not stay the lower court’s judgment or mandate. Before seeking more time, counsel should independently confirm the deadline,

Yes. The Fourth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit, or another federal court of appeals may stay its mandate while a party prepares and files a petition for a writ of certiorari, but the stay is discretionary—not automatic. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d), the motion must show that the planned petition will present a substantial question and that good cause justifies delaying the mandate. The motion ordinarily must be filed before the mandate issues. Just as important,

Yes. When a state’s highest court denies discretionary review, a party may still petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the underlying state-court judgment if the case presents a properly preserved federal question, the judgment is sufficiently final, and no adequate and independent state-law ground prevents meaningful relief. The state high court’s one-line denial ordinarily does not decide the federal merits or prevent a certiorari petition. The petition usually asks the

The U.S. Supreme Court may summarily reverse when the petition-stage papers show a clear, outcome-determinative legal error that can be corrected under existing law without full merits briefing or oral argument. The procedure is rare: the Court ordinarily uses it when the judgment below is incompatible with controlling precedent or reflects a serious departure from a settled legal rule, and when no factual, jurisdictional, preservation, or alternative-ground problem makes imm

The U.S. Supreme Court may grant certiorari before judgment only when a case pending in a federal court of appeals is so exceptionally important that bypassing ordinary appellate review is justified and immediate Supreme Court resolution is required. It is not enough that the district court may be wrong, the stakes are high, or the court of appeals may take time to decide the case. A viable petition under Supreme Court Rule 11 must establish both a certworthy federal question

When multiple certiorari petitions involve the same federal question, the U.S. Supreme Court may grant one petition, grant multiple petitions and consolidate them, hold one petition for another case, deny weaker vehicles, request responses, call for the views of the Solicitor General, or issue a grant-vacate-remand order after deciding a related case. The key issue is not simply which petition was filed first; it is which case presents the cleanest vehicle, strongest conflict

Yes. A party may seek a stay while preparing a U.S. Supreme Court certiorari petition, but the stay is not automatic and usually must be requested first from the lower court. The request must show that the case presents a serious certiorari issue, that enforcement before Supreme Court review would cause irreparable harm, and that the equities justify preserving the status quo. The stay strategy depends on whether the party needs a stay of the federal appellate mandate, a stay