Can the Deadline for a U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Be Extended? Rule 13.5 Applications to a Circuit Justice—Nationwide
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 a jurisdictional defect, guarantee that a petition will be filed, or signal that the Supreme Court is likely to grant review.
The answer depends on…
the date the judgment or order sought to be reviewed was entered;
whether a timely petition for panel rehearing, rehearing en banc, or state-court rehearing was filed;
whether the lower court appropriately entertained an untimely rehearing petition or considered rehearing on its own;
whether the case comes from a federal court of appeals, a state court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or another authorized tribunal;
which Supreme Court Justice is assigned to the circuit from which the case arises;
whether the application will be filed at least 10 days before the current deadline;
whether extraordinary circumstances explain a later—but still pre-deadline—application;
whether the applicant seeks 30 days, 60 days, or another justified period;
whether the requested period remains within Rule 13.5’s maximum;
whether counsel can show specific good cause rather than a general desire for more time;
whether the application identifies every party for whom an extension is requested;
whether the Court has statutory jurisdiction over the contemplated petition;
whether the judgment is sufficiently final and the federal question was preserved;
whether the proposed petition presents a plausible Rule 10 basis for discretionary review;
whether a separate stay of the mandate, judgment, injunction, sentence, or enforcement activity is required; and
whether counsel has enough time to verify the record and responsibly determine that a non-frivolous petition can be filed.
Rule 13.5 Extends the Filing Period—Not the Case’s Merits
The ordinary certiorari period under Rule 13 is 90 days. Rule 13.5 permits the assigned Justice, for good cause, to extend that period by no more than 60 days.
That limited relief should be understood precisely:
What an extension can do | What an extension cannot do |
Move the deadline for the named applicant to file a certiorari petition | Revive a deadline that already expired |
Provide time to review the record and prepare the petition | Establish Supreme Court jurisdiction or finality |
Permit a carefully supported request of up to 60 additional days | Guarantee the full period requested |
Give newly retained counsel a realistic preparation window where good cause exists | Show that the petition satisfies Rule 10 |
Allow coordination of specialized or complex briefing | Stay the mandate, judgment, injunction, sentence, or enforcement |
The Justice may grant fewer days than requested or deny the application. Counsel should continue preparing against the existing deadline until an order is entered.
Step One: Calculate the Existing Deadline Correctly
Rule 13.1 generally measures 90 days from entry of the judgment sought to be reviewed—not from issuance of the appellate mandate, receipt of the opinion, entry of a costs order, or the client’s decision to retain Supreme Court counsel.
For a judgment of a lower state court subject to discretionary review by the state court of last resort, the period ordinarily runs from the state high court’s order denying discretionary review. The judgment under review and jurisdictional path must still be identified correctly.
Calendar calculations should account for Rule 30, weekends, legal holidays, paper filing, electronic submission, service, and any case-specific statute. Counsel should verify the actual docket entries and orders rather than relying on a date stated in an email, intake form, or prior lawyer’s calendar.
The mandate does not start or extend the certiorari clock
Rule 13.3 says the period runs from entry of the judgment or qualifying rehearing disposition, not from the mandate. A later mandate date does not create more certiorari time, and staying the mandate does not itself extend the Rule 13 deadline.
A filing defect is different from lateness
Rule 14.5 may allow correction of certain formatting deficiencies in a petition that was submitted timely and in good faith. That correction procedure is not a substitute for filing on time. The Clerk will not file a petition that is jurisdictionally late.
Step Two: Determine Whether Rehearing Changed the Deadline
A timely rehearing petition can reset the certiorari period. Under Rule 13.3, if any party timely seeks rehearing, the period for all parties ordinarily runs from denial of rehearing—or from the later judgment if rehearing is granted.
The same rule may apply if the lower court appropriately entertains an untimely rehearing petition or considers rehearing sua sponte. But merely submitting an unauthorized, mislabeled, or untimely motion does not necessarily stop the clock. Counsel should review:
the lower court’s rehearing rules;
the filing date and method;
whether the motion was timely;
whether the court accepted and substantively entertained it;
whether the court denied it on the merits or rejected it procedurally;
whether judgment was amended;
whether a later order changed only clerical matters; and
whether another party’s rehearing filing affects all parties.
A motion should not be filed solely to manufacture time. Rehearing has its own standards and can affect preservation, finality, the Question Presented, and the lower court’s reasoning.
Step Three: Identify the Correct Circuit Justice
Rule 22.3 requires an application to be addressed to the Justice allotted to the circuit from which the case arises. The document is filed with the Clerk, who transmits it to the appropriate Justice.
The assignment usually follows the geographic or federal appellate circuit, not the applicant’s residence, counsel’s office, or the location where the dispute has business effects. Under the current assignment order:
matters arising from the Eleventh Circuit—including federal cases from Florida, Georgia, and Alabama—are assigned to Justice Clarence Thomas;
matters arising from the Fourth Circuit—including federal cases from North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland—are assigned to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.;
Florida state-court matters ordinarily correspond to the Eleventh Circuit assignment;
North Carolina state-court matters ordinarily correspond to the Fourth Circuit assignment;
D.C. Circuit and Federal Circuit matters are assigned to the Chief Justice; and
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces applications are addressed to the Chief Justice under Rule 22.3.
Assignments can change. Counsel should verify the Court’s current Circuit Assignments page immediately before filing.
Step Four: Show Specific Good Cause
Rule 13.5 does not define an exhaustive list of circumstances constituting good cause. The application should explain why the requested additional time is reasonably necessary in this case and why the applicant acted diligently.
Depending on the circumstances, a supported application may address:
recent retention or substitution of Supreme Court counsel;
the size, complexity, or age of the record;
multiple opinions, consolidated cases, or related proceedings;
the need to assess jurisdiction, finality, preservation, or alternative grounds;
counsel’s significant preexisting professional obligations;
serious illness, family emergency, or another documented disruption;
coordination among multiple parties, counsel, or governmental entities;
the need to obtain and review transcripts, sealed materials, or archived records;
a complex federal question requiring specialized research;
an intervening decision or changed legal landscape; or
the time needed to make a responsible decision whether a viable petition exists.
The application should be candid and proportionate. Boilerplate statements about workload, importance, or wanting additional time are weaker than a short chronology explaining what counsel must complete, why it cannot reasonably be completed by the existing date, what work is already underway, and why the requested number of days is appropriate.
Good cause to prepare a petition is not the same as a showing that certiorari should be granted. Still, an application should not imply that a petition exists in viable form when counsel has not reviewed the jurisdictional basis, operative judgment, and proposed federal question.
What Must a Rule 13.5 Application Include?
Rule 13.5 expressly requires the application to:
set out the basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction;
identify the judgment sought to be reviewed;
include a copy of the opinion;
include any order respecting rehearing;
state specific reasons why an extension is justified;
identify clearly each party for whom an extension is sought; and
be filed at least 10 days before the petition is due, except in extraordinary circumstances.
A careful application also typically states:
the lower-court case name and number;
the dates of the opinion, judgment, and rehearing order;
the current petition deadline;
the number of additional days requested and exact proposed deadline;
whether this is the first or a later extension request;
a concise procedural history;
the statutory jurisdictional provision, commonly 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) or § 1257(a);
a sufficiently accurate description of the issues likely to be presented;
the specific facts supporting good cause;
the identity and contact information of counsel of record;
the parties served; and
any information required by Rules 21, 22, 29, 30, 33.2, and applicable electronic-filing guidance.
The application is not a miniature certiorari petition. It should provide enough information for the Justice to evaluate timing, jurisdiction, and good cause without prematurely making unsupported merits claims.
Filing, Format, and Service
A Rule 13.5 application is addressed to the individual Circuit Justice but filed with the Supreme Court Clerk. Rule 22 generally requires an original and two copies prepared in Rule 33.2 paper format, accompanied by proof of service under Rule 29.
Represented counsel generally must also comply with the Court’s electronic-filing requirements. Paper remains the official means of filing, and electronic submission does not itself serve opposing counsel. Sealed filings, personal identifiers, and cases subject to special privacy rules require separate review under Rules 34.6 and 34.7 and the Court’s current electronic-filing guidance.
Do not wait until the tenth day to begin. Time is needed to obtain the lower-court materials, confirm the due date, draft the application, arrange service, prepare paper copies, register for electronic filing if necessary, and correct any procedural problem before the deadline.
The 10-Day Requirement and Extraordinary Circumstances
The application ordinarily must be filed at least 10 days before the certiorari petition is due. Filing closer to the deadline requires extraordinary circumstances—not merely ordinary workload, delayed intake, or a strategic decision to wait.
Even extraordinary circumstances do not authorize filing after the certiorari deadline has expired. A party seeking relief in the final days should be prepared to explain:
when the emergency arose;
why it could not reasonably have been anticipated;
when counsel learned of it;
what steps were taken immediately;
why filing the petition itself remains impracticable; and
why the requested extension is no broader than necessary.
A last-minute application creates operational risk. If it is denied—or not acted on before the deadline—the petition still must be filed by the unextended deadline to preserve review.
A Second Application Does Not Expand the 60-Day Ceiling
Rule 13.5 authorizes an extension period not exceeding 60 days. A party that obtained fewer than 60 additional days may sometimes seek a further extension before the then-current deadline, but the applicant should not assume additional time will be granted or that serial requests can exceed the Rule’s maximum.
Any later application should disclose the prior request and order, show new or continuing good cause, identify the remaining permissible time, and explain why the earlier period proved insufficient despite diligence.
An Extension Does Not Stay the Judgment or Mandate
An order extending the certiorari deadline changes only the time to petition. It does not automatically:
stay a federal appellate mandate;
stay execution of a money judgment;
preserve an injunction;
pause a criminal sentence;
stop a state-court remand;
suspend agency action;
prevent disclosure of confidential or privileged information; or
maintain the litigation status quo.
Those issues require a separate analysis. A federal appellate mandate may be addressed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d). A stay pending certiorari may require relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f) and Supreme Court Rules 22 and 23, ordinarily after relief is sought in the appropriate lower court.
The clocks often diverge: the certiorari petition may be due in 90 days while the mandate issues much sooner. Extension and stay strategy should be planned together but requested through the correct, separate mechanisms.
What Counsel Must Review Before Saying a Viable Petition Exists
An extension application can be appropriate while counsel conducts a disciplined assessment. But counsel should not equate “more time” with “a viable Supreme Court case.” Before representing that a non-frivolous petition exists, counsel should review:
Jurisdiction and finality
Is there a judgment the Supreme Court has statutory authority to review?
Is a state-court judgment sufficiently final under § 1257?
Did the case reach the highest state court in which review could be had?
Is the petition actually one before judgment under Rule 11?
The federal question and preservation
What precise federal constitutional, statutory, treaty, or jurisdictional question is presented?
Was it timely raised, preserved, and passed on below?
Does the judgment rest on an adequate and independent state ground?
Rule 10 and broader importance
Is there a square conflict among federal circuits or state high courts?
Does the decision conflict with controlling Supreme Court precedent?
Is the federal question important, recurring, and suitable for national resolution?
Is the case more than a request to correct factbound error?
Vehicle and record problems
Are there alternative grounds supporting the judgment?
Do standing, mootness, waiver, harmless error, or an incomplete record block relief?
Does the case cleanly present the question without unresolved factual disputes?
Could a favorable ruling materially change the judgment?
Practical relief
What order should the Supreme Court enter?
Are a stay, mandate stay, injunction, bond, or protective measure needed first?
Would remand provide meaningful relief?
Do settlement, enforcement, regulatory, business, or reputational consequences affect the strategy?
The extension period should be used for this evaluation as well as drafting. If the review shows no responsible certiorari path, counsel should advise against filing rather than use the extra time to manufacture one.
Evidence and Materials to Assemble Immediately
A time-sensitive Rule 13.5 review should begin with:
the complete docket sheets from every relevant court;
the judgment sought to be reviewed;
all opinions, including amended, concurring, and dissenting opinions;
any timely or untimely rehearing petitions and orders;
the mandate and any order staying or recalling it;
the trial-court or agency decision;
briefs showing preservation and how the issue was passed on;
orders establishing finality or resolving remaining claims;
any state high-court discretionary-review petition and denial;
existing stays, injunctions, bonds, and enforcement deadlines;
directly related proceedings;
potential circuit- or state-court-conflict authorities;
correspondence establishing when new counsel was retained; and
facts supporting the specific good-cause showing.
The application should not attach an entire record merely to demonstrate volume. Attach what the Rule requires, describe the remaining materials accurately, and preserve confidential or sealed information under the applicable procedure.
Risks and Appeal Consequences
Wrong deadline: Measuring from the mandate or a non-tolling motion can make both the application and petition late.
Late application: Waiting within 10 days requires extraordinary circumstances; waiting past the petition deadline is fatal to ordinary Rule 13.5 relief.
Wrong Justice: Misidentifying the circuit assignment can delay a time-sensitive filing.
Insufficient good cause: Boilerplate or unexplained delay may lead to denial or a shorter extension.
Unnamed party: An extension applies only to the party or parties identified in the application.
False confidence: Granting an extension says nothing about whether certiorari will be granted.
Unstayed enforcement: The mandate, judgment, injunction, or disclosure obligation may take effect during the extended period.
Rehearing error: An unauthorized or unentertained rehearing filing may not reset the clock.
Vehicle defects: Additional drafting time does not cure finality, preservation, mootness, or independent-ground problems.
Operational delay: Printing, service, electronic registration, sealed-material review, and appendix work can consume the extension quickly.
Authority Block
Supreme Court Rule 13: establishes the ordinary 90-day period, explains the effect of rehearing, distinguishes the judgment date from the mandate, and governs Rule 13.5 applications.
Supreme Court Rule 22: governs applications to individual Justices, including circuit assignment, Rule 33.2 format, copies, and service.
Supreme Court Rules 29, 30, 33.2, and 34: govern filing, service, time computation, paper format, and general document preparation.
28 U.S.C. § 2101(c): provides the 90-day civil certiorari period and authorizes a Justice, for good cause, to grant up to 60 additional days.
Supreme Court Circuit Assignments: identifies the Justice currently allotted to each circuit.
March 2026 Guide to Filing Paid Cases: provides current Clerk guidance concerning paper and electronic filing, formatting, counsel, appendices, privacy, and common filing errors.
Supreme Court Rules 22 and 23 and 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f): provide separate authority relevant to a stay pending certiorari.
Deadlines, jurisdiction, rehearing effects, stay requirements, and filing procedures depend on the exact docket and governing law. This article provides general information, not legal advice.
Why Appellate-Aware Deadline Strategy Matters
The best Rule 13.5 application is supported by work that begins below: preserving the federal issue, identifying a reviewable judgment, monitoring rehearing and mandate dates, maintaining a usable appellate record, and recognizing when enforcement may require emergency relief.
Biazzo Law brings an appellate-aware litigation perspective across Florida and North Carolina courts, federal district courts, the Eleventh and Fourth Circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court. That coverage connects Rule 13.5 timing, federal and state finality, mandate practice, injunction readiness, stays, record review, certiorari strategy, and potential remand consequences.
The firm’s Supreme Court and amicus lens also tests whether the contemplated petition presents a nationally significant, preserved, and cleanly reviewable federal question—not simply whether an extension can be requested. The objective is to use the available time to reach a responsible filing decision and, where warranted, prepare a Court-ready petition.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many extra days may a Circuit Justice grant?
Rule 13.5 permits an extension of no more than 60 days. The Justice may grant the full request, grant fewer days, or deny the application.
When must a Rule 13.5 application be filed?
It must be filed before the certiorari petition is due and ordinarily at least 10 days before the deadline. An application filed within that 10-day window requires extraordinary circumstances.
Can the Supreme Court extend a deadline that already expired?
Rule 13.5 is not a procedure for reviving an expired certiorari deadline. Once the jurisdictional period has passed without a timely petition or valid extension, ordinary certiorari review may be unavailable.
What qualifies as good cause?
Good cause is case-specific. Newly retained counsel, a complex or voluminous record, serious illness, substantial preexisting obligations, related proceedings, or difficult jurisdictional and record issues may support a request when explained specifically and paired with diligence. No factor guarantees relief.
Does a timely rehearing petition change the 90-day deadline?
Generally, yes. If any party timely files for rehearing, the certiorari period ordinarily runs from denial of rehearing or the later judgment after rehearing is granted. An untimely filing affects the deadline only if the lower court appropriately entertains it or considers rehearing on its own.
Does the extension also stay the appellate mandate or judgment?
No. A Rule 13.5 order changes the petition deadline only. A mandate stay, enforcement stay, injunction, or other interim relief must be pursued separately under the governing rules.
Which Justice receives the application in a Florida or North Carolina case?
Under the current assignments, Justice Thomas is the Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Florida, and Chief Justice Roberts is assigned to the Fourth Circuit, which includes North Carolina. Counsel should verify the current assignment before filing.
Does receiving an extension mean the case is likely to receive certiorari?
No. The extension order addresses time and good cause, not the Rule 10 merits. Counsel must independently assess jurisdiction, preservation, conflicts, importance, vehicle problems, and meaningful relief.
Related Biazzo Law Resources
Schedule a Litigation Strategy Review
If a certiorari deadline is approaching, schedule a litigation strategy review. Biazzo Law can verify the operative deadline, rehearing effect, Circuit Justice, jurisdictional basis, finality, proposed Question Presented, Rule 10 grounds, record and vehicle risks, Rule 13.5 good cause, filing requirements, and any separate mandate, injunction, or stay relief needed to protect the client while Supreme Court review is evaluated.
Comments