Can the Deadline for a U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Be Extended? Rule 13.5 Applications to a Circuit Justice — U.S. Supreme Court (Nationwide)
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, the Court’s jurisdiction, the effect of any rehearing proceeding, the federal issue’s preservation, and whether a viable petition can responsibly be presented.
The answer depends on…
the date and nature of the judgment or order the proposed petition would ask the Supreme Court to review;
whether review would arise from a federal court of appeals, a state court of last resort, or a lower state court after discretionary review was denied;
whether the judgment is final for purposes of Supreme Court review;
whether a rehearing petition was timely filed, appropriately entertained, granted, denied, withdrawn, or still pending;
whether an amended opinion or later judgment changed the relevant procedural event;
whether the certiorari deadline remains open when the extension application is filed;
whether the application is submitted at least 10 days before the petition is due;
whether specific facts establish good cause for the amount of additional time requested;
which Justice is assigned to the circuit from which the case arises;
whether every party seeking additional time is clearly identified;
whether the application accurately states the Court’s jurisdiction and includes the required lower-court materials;
whether the potential petition presents a preserved federal question, a suitable vehicle, and a plausible reason for discretionary review; and
whether separate relief is needed to stay the mandate, enforcement, an injunction, or another consequence of the judgment.
The First Question Is Whether the Existing Deadline Is Still Open
Rule 13 generally allows 90 days to file a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a judgment entered by a United States court of appeals or a state court of last resort. When a lower state-court judgment is subject to discretionary review by the state court of last resort, the 90 days generally run from the order denying that review.
The filing period runs from entry of the relevant judgment or order—not from issuance of the federal appellate mandate. That distinction can be outcome-determinative. A mandate date may matter to enforcement and lower-court authority, but it is ordinarily not the date from which Rule 13’s certiorari period is measured.
Rule 13.5 authorizes an extension only within a period that is still running. Rule 30.2 likewise requires an extension application to be filed within the period sought to be extended. Once the jurisdictional filing period has expired, an ordinary Rule 13.5 application cannot revive it, and the Clerk will not file a jurisdictionally late certiorari petition.
The 10-day rule is not a target date
The application must reach the Clerk at least 10 days before the petition is due, except in extraordinary circumstances. Rule 30.2 states the point more sharply: an application filed less than 10 days before the deadline will not be granted except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
That does not mean counsel should plan to file on the tenth day. Deadline calculation, record review, client authorization, service, paper preparation, electronic filing, and correction of potential defects all take time. A request received close to the cutoff may require an immediate threshold review before counsel can determine whether a compliant and accurate application is possible.
Did Rehearing Change the Certiorari Deadline?
Sometimes. Under Rule 13.3, if any party timely files a petition for rehearing in the lower court, the certiorari period for all parties runs from the denial of rehearing—or, if rehearing is granted, from the later entry of judgment. The same treatment may apply when the lower court appropriately entertains an untimely rehearing petition or considers rehearing on its own initiative.
The label on a filing is not enough. Counsel should verify:
when the judgment was entered;
what the lower court’s rules permitted;
when and how the rehearing request was filed;
whether the lower court accepted and considered it;
whether rehearing was denied, granted, dismissed, or withdrawn;
whether the court amended its opinion or entered a new judgment; and
whether a later order merely corrected something collateral without restarting the Rule 13 clock.
An unauthorized motion, a motion that does not qualify as rehearing, or correspondence asking the court to reconsider may not change the deadline. Conversely, an order on a properly entertained rehearing petition may control even when the party now seeking certiorari did not join that petition. Counsel should obtain the docket and the actual judgment, opinion, rehearing papers, and rehearing order rather than calculate from a client’s recollection or an online summary.
What Constitutes “Good Cause” Under Rule 13.5?
Rule 13.5 requires specific reasons why additional time is justified. It does not provide an exclusive checklist, and the strength of a request depends on the facts, timing, requested length, and procedural posture.
Potential good-cause circumstances may include:
counsel’s substantial existing professional obligations that cannot reasonably be rearranged;
recent retention requiring responsible review of a significant record and procedural history;
the complexity, breadth, or technical nature of the record and proposed federal question;
serious illness, family emergency, or another concrete personal circumstance affecting counsel;
coordination among multiple parties, lawyers, institutions, or prospective amici;
the need to evaluate related proceedings or a material intervening development; or
other specific circumstances showing why additional time will permit a properly researched and professionally prepared petition.
The application should be candid and proportionate. Generic assertions that counsel is busy, that the case is important, or that more time would be helpful may be inadequate without concrete context. The applicant should request the time genuinely needed—up to, but not automatically, the 60-day maximum—and accurately calculate the proposed extended date.
Good cause for more time is different from a compelling reason to grant certiorari. A Justice may allow additional time without expressing any view about whether the Court should hear the case. Likewise, a potentially important federal question does not excuse a deficient or late extension application.
Why an Extension Is Not Automatic
Rule 13.5 expressly says that an application to extend the certiorari deadline is “not favored.” The applicant carries the burden of presenting a timely, procedurally correct request supported by specific facts.
Important consequences follow:
the full 60 days should not be assumed;
the Justice may grant fewer days than requested;
a denial leaves the original deadline in place;
counsel should continue protecting the original deadline while the application is pending when practicable;
an extension applies only to the party or parties clearly named in the application; and
under Rules 22.4 and 30.3, a denied extension application may not be renewed to another Justice.
The application is therefore not a placeholder that safely pauses the clock. Filing it does not itself alter the deadline. Only an order granting relief does that.
Which Justice Receives the Application?
The application is addressed to the Justice allotted to the circuit from which the case arises, but it is filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The Clerk transmits it to the appropriate Justice.
For matters arising from the Fourth Circuit—including federal and state cases from North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland—the current Circuit Justice is Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. For matters arising from the Eleventh Circuit—including Florida, Georgia, and Alabama—the current Circuit Justice is Justice Clarence Thomas. Assignments can change and should be confirmed on the Supreme Court’s current circuit-assignment page before filing.
The originating circuit is determined by the court system from which Supreme Court review is sought, not by counsel’s office, the client’s headquarters, or where later consequences are felt. A Florida state-court case ordinarily arises from the Eleventh Circuit for assignment purposes; a North Carolina state-court case ordinarily arises from the Fourth Circuit.
Rule 22 currently requires an original and two copies of an application to an individual Justice, prepared under Rule 33.2, with proof of service under Rule 29. Represented counsel must also comply with the Court’s electronic-filing requirements. Current rules and Clerk guidance should be checked at the time of filing.
What Must the Rule 13.5 Application Contain?
At minimum, Rule 13.5 requires the application to:
state the basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction;
identify the judgment sought to be reviewed;
include a copy of the opinion and any order respecting rehearing;
give specific reasons why the extension is justified; and
clearly identify every party for whom additional time is requested.
A careful application will ordinarily also give a concise procedural history, identify the original due date and requested new date, explain the deadline calculation, state the date on which the application is filed, describe the prospective issue sufficiently to establish context, and include the documents needed to verify the request.
The jurisdictional basis must be real, not formulaic
For review of a federal court of appeals judgment, the application will ordinarily address 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). For review of a qualifying final judgment or decree of a state court, it will ordinarily address 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), including the federal character of the issue and the finality of the state-court judgment.
That jurisdictional statement cannot be responsibly drafted without identifying the precise judgment, court, federal issue, and path to Supreme Court review. State-court cases require special attention to whether the federal question was timely raised and passed upon, whether the judgment is final, and whether an adequate and independent state ground could prevent review.
What Counsel Should Review Before Representing That a Viable Petition Exists
An extension application is short, but the professional judgment behind it should not be superficial. Before representing that a certiorari petition is viable—or describing the proposed petition in a filing—counsel should review enough of the case to assess both jurisdiction and non-frivolous Supreme Court strategy.
1. The operative decisions and docket
Counsel should identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, all relevant opinions, rehearing orders, amended decisions, mandate activity, and any later order that may affect finality or timing.
2. The preserved federal question
The proposed question should arise under federal law and ordinarily must have been properly raised and preserved. Counsel should determine where it appears in the pleadings, motions, trial record, appellate briefs, and opinions.
3. The jurisdictional path
The analysis should identify the applicable statute, finality, the court from which review is sought, the relevant dates, and any obstacle such as mootness, standing, waiver, forfeiture, or an adequate and independent state ground.
4. Certworthiness
The Supreme Court generally selects cases presenting compelling reasons for review, not cases that merely allege error. Counsel should investigate whether the proposed issue involves a genuine conflict among courts, a conflict with Supreme Court precedent, an important unresolved federal question, recurring national consequences, or another consideration recognized by Rule 10.
5. Vehicle problems and alternative grounds
A promising abstract issue may be a poor vehicle if the judgment rests on an independent unchallenged ground, the issue was not decided below, the record is disputed, the requested result would not change the judgment, or later developments have made the dispute moot. A realistic evaluation should identify those problems before the extension application overstates the case.
6. The requested relief and practical objective
Counsel should understand what a successful petition could accomplish. The client may seek reversal, vacatur and remand, review of a particular federal rule, preservation of business operations, or clarification with broader institutional consequences. The desired result must fit the judgment and the question the Court can properly decide.
This review need not duplicate the completed certiorari petition. But it should be sufficient to calculate the deadline accurately, make truthful representations, avoid pursuing a plainly defective jurisdictional path, and determine whether additional time would serve a legitimate filing strategy.
An Extension Does Not Stay the Judgment or Mandate
A Rule 13.5 extension changes only the deadline to file the certiorari petition for the named applicant. It does not automatically:
stay a federal court of appeals mandate;
stay enforcement of a state- or federal-court judgment;
suspend an injunction;
stop execution, collection, transfer, disclosure, or regulatory action;
toll a separate rehearing or stay deadline; or
preserve the status quo while the Justice considers the extension request.
If enforcement presents an immediate risk, counsel must analyze a separate stay strategy. In a federal appeal, that may include a motion to stay the mandate under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d). In an appropriate case, 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f) and Supreme Court Rules 22 and 23 may govern an application to a Circuit Justice, ordinarily after relief has first been sought below.
The showing for a stay is materially different from good cause for a filing extension. A stay request may require a substantial certiorari question, a likelihood of reversal, irreparable harm, and equitable considerations. A client can receive additional time for the petition while remaining subject to the judgment.
A Practical Rule 13.5 Review Framework
Step 1: Freeze the dates
Obtain the docket, judgment, opinion, rehearing filing, rehearing disposition, and any amended judgment. Calculate the original Rule 13 deadline and the Rule 13.5 ten-day threshold independently.
Step 2: Identify the correct judgment and jurisdiction
Determine whether review lies under § 1254, § 1257, or another provision, and whether the decision is sufficiently final. Do not assume that the last docket entry is the judgment to be reviewed.
Step 3: Conduct a threshold certiorari assessment
Frame the potential Question Presented, confirm preservation, research the claimed conflict or importance, and identify vehicle defects and alternative grounds.
Step 4: Document good cause
Develop specific, accurate facts explaining why the requested additional time is needed. Confirm the requested number of days and calculate the proposed due date under Rule 30.
Step 5: Confirm the Circuit Justice and filing requirements
Verify the current circuit assignment, Rule 22 format, appendices, service, corporate disclosure requirements where applicable, paper filing, and electronic submission.
Step 6: Run a parallel stay analysis
Determine whether the mandate has issued, what may be enforced, when harm may occur, what court should receive the first stay request, and whether an emergency track is needed.
Step 7: Keep preparing for the original deadline
Until an extension is granted, the original deadline remains operative. Counsel should avoid structuring the work on the assumption that the application will be allowed.
Risks and Consequences
Expired deadline: Rule 13.5 cannot ordinarily resurrect a certiorari period that has ended.
Incorrect trigger date: using the mandate, notice, or an inapplicable post-judgment filing can produce a late petition.
Late extension request: filing fewer than 10 days before the deadline demands extraordinary circumstances and may be denied.
Unsupported good cause: conclusory scheduling language may not justify the requested time.
Wrong Justice: the application must be directed to the Justice assigned to the originating circuit.
Missing party: relief applies only to the parties identified in the application.
Jurisdictional defect: more time does not cure lack of finality, absence of a federal question, or another barrier to Supreme Court review.
Weak vehicle: an extension may postpone filing without improving a case burdened by preservation, mootness, factboundness, or alternative-ground problems.
No stay: the mandate or judgment may take effect while the extended petition is being prepared.
Nonrenewability: a denied extension application cannot be renewed to another Justice.
Authority Block
Supreme Court Rule 13: establishes the ordinary 90-day period, explains the effect of rehearing, and permits a Circuit Justice to grant no more than 60 additional days for good cause. Rule 13.5 requires filing at least 10 days before the petition is due absent extraordinary circumstances and states that applications are not favored.
Supreme Court Rule 22: governs applications to individual Justices, filing with the Clerk, copies, service, and presentation to the Justice assigned to the circuit from which the case arises.
Supreme Court Rule 30: governs time computation and confirms that the extension application must be filed within the period sought to be extended; a Rule 13.5 application filed fewer than 10 days before the deadline requires the most extraordinary circumstances and cannot be renewed after denial.
Supreme Court Rules 10 and 14: address compelling reasons for certiorari and the required content of the petition, helping distinguish a timely extension request from a viable certiorari strategy.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1254(1), 1257(a), and 2101(c): supply common jurisdictional and timing provisions for certiorari from federal courts of appeals and qualifying state-court judgments.
Stays: 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f), Supreme Court Rule 23, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d) address relief that is separate from a Rule 13.5 deadline extension.
Official sources: Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court Rules and Guidance, and current Circuit Justice assignments.
Rules, statutes, filing guidance, and circuit assignments should be checked in their current form and applied to the actual docket. This article provides general information, not legal advice.
Why Appellate-Aware Supreme Court Strategy Matters
A Rule 13.5 application sits at the intersection of deadline control and case selection. The immediate filing must be accurate and timely, but the larger question is whether the additional time will support a jurisdictionally sound, preserved, certworthy petition—or whether another strategy is more responsible.
Biazzo Law evaluates Supreme Court matters with an appellate-aware litigation approach. That includes federal and state appellate coverage, review of judgments originating in Florida and North Carolina, Eleventh and Fourth Circuit practice, injunction and mandate-stay readiness, certiorari and merits-stage planning, and an amicus lens for issues with broader institutional or national significance. The firm’s assessment focuses on what can be filed ethically, what relief is realistically available, and what must be protected while Supreme Court review is considered.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much additional time can a Circuit Justice grant for a certiorari petition?
No more than 60 days under Rule 13.5. The applicant may request less, and the Justice may grant less than requested. The extension is measured against the original filing deadline and applies only to the parties named in the application.
Can I request an extension after the 90-day deadline has passed?
Ordinarily, no. The application must be filed within the period sought to be extended, and the Clerk will not file a jurisdictionally late certiorari petition. Rule 13.5 is a mechanism for extending an open deadline, not reviving an expired one.
What happens if fewer than 10 days remain?
The application may be considered only under a much more demanding standard. Rules 13.5 and 30.2 require extraordinary—or, in Rule 30.2’s phrasing, the most extraordinary—circumstances when the application is filed fewer than 10 days before the petition is due. Immediate evaluation is necessary, but relief should not be assumed.
Does a rehearing petition restart the 90-day period?
A timely rehearing petition generally causes the period to run from denial of rehearing or from the later judgment if rehearing is granted. A rehearing filing that was unauthorized, not entertained, or procedurally ineffective may not change the deadline, so counsel must examine the lower court’s rules, docket, filing, and disposition.
Which Supreme Court Justice handles a Florida or North Carolina extension application?
Under the current assignments, Justice Clarence Thomas is the Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Florida, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. is the Circuit Justice for the Fourth Circuit, which includes North Carolina. Assignments should be confirmed before filing.
Does obtaining an extension mean the Supreme Court is interested in the case?
No. An extension order reflects additional filing time, not a view about the merits or whether certiorari will be granted. The petition must still establish jurisdiction and a compelling reason for discretionary review.
Will a Rule 13.5 extension stop the mandate or enforcement of the judgment?
No. A stay of mandate or enforcement requires separate relief under the applicable lower-court and Supreme Court rules. The extension and stay tracks should be analyzed together when the judgment may cause harm before the petition is filed.
What should I send counsel for an urgent Rule 13.5 review?
Send the complete docket, operative judgment, all opinions, rehearing filing and order, any amended decision, mandate information, the briefs below, and the key record materials showing preservation of the federal issue. Counsel will also need the names of all parties seeking an extension and an accurate account of why additional time is required.
Related Biazzo Law Resources
Parent service page: U.S. Supreme Court Practice
Related article: Should We File for Rehearing or Go Straight to Certiorari?
Related article: Can a Federal Appellate Mandate Be Stayed While a Party Prepares a Certiorari Petition?
Schedule a Litigation Strategy Review
If a certiorari deadline is approaching, schedule a litigation strategy review as soon as possible. Biazzo Law can evaluate the controlling dates, rehearing history, Supreme Court jurisdiction, preservation, certworthiness, vehicle risks, Rule 13.5 good cause, Circuit Justice assignment, mandate or enforcement exposure, and whether a non-frivolous petition can be prepared responsibly.
Comments