Our experienced attorneys will review your case and provide feedback on your appeal options at no cost.
All consultations are protected by attorney-client privilege. We respect your privacy and will not share your information.
Most federal cases end in the appropriate regional U.S. Court of Appeals, while most state cases end within the state’s own appellate system. The U.S. Supreme Court may review federal appellate decisions and final state-court judgments involving qualifying questions of federal law or the U.S. Constitution. It does not ordinarily review disputes based only on state law.
Because Supreme Court review is discretionary, a petition must show more than an alleged mistake by the lower court. Strong candidates often involve conflicts among federal circuits or state courts of last resort, an important unsettled federal question, or a ruling that conflicts with existing Supreme Court precedent.
In most civil and criminal cases, a petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed within 90 days after entry of the judgment or order being reviewed. A timely rehearing petition may affect when that period begins. Missing the applicable deadline can permanently prevent Supreme Court review
A petition for a writ of certiorari is the formal request asking the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision. It is not a full merits brief. Its job is to convince the Court that the case is worth granting.
An effective petition typically:
No. The Court grants review in a small fraction of petitions filed each Term. Most petitions are denied without opinion. That reality should shape strategy: clients need candid advice about whether a petition is justified, how to frame the question, and what a denial (or grant) would mean next.
You must strictly comply with the court’s procedural rules to file a petition.
Calculate the 90-day period carefully from the correct judgment date, accounting for rehearing practice where applicable. Extensions may be available by application in appropriate circumstances.
Supreme Court review is built on the lower-court record and the legal question preserved below. We analyze opinions, dissents, and the procedural history to identify the cleanest vehicle for review.
The petition must meet Supreme Court formatting and content requirements, including the Questions Presented, tables, opinions below, and reasons for granting the writ.
Filing involves fees or an in forma pauperis request, the correct number of copies when required, and electronic filing obligations for counsel. Petitions are generally filed by a member of the Supreme Court Bar or by a petitioner proceeding pro se.
If the Court calls for a response, distributes the petition, or grants review, strategy shifts quickly to briefing and—if scheduled—oral argument preparation.
In rare circumstances, parties may seek extraordinary writs, including mandamus, asking a higher court to compel a lower court or public official to perform a clear legal duty. Other extraordinary writs, such as prohibition, may be used to prevent a lower court from acting beyond its jurisdiction. These remedies are exceptional, tightly constrained, and are not a substitute for a timely, properly framed appeal or petition for writ of certiorari. We provide candid advice on when extraordinary relief is, and is not, a realistic option.
Supreme Court strategy usually begins earlier—in the federal circuit courts or state appellate courts. Brownstone Law handles federal appellate matters involving white-collar crime, securities and fraud, conspiracy, regulatory disputes, constitutional claims, business torts, insurance, eminent domain, and other complex civil and criminal issues.
| Date (docket entry) | Docket No. | Type | Party name (per docket) | Outcome / status | Supreme Court docket |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2, 2022 | 22A88 | Application to extend time to file cert | Earnest Eugene Padillow | Granted | Docket lists Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Apr 5, 2023 | 22A870 | Application to extend time to file cert | Hieu Minh Le | Granted | Docket lists Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Jun 21, 2023 | 22A1099 | Application to extend time to file cert | Isaac Ashton | Granted | Docket lists Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Jul 18, 2023 | 23A36 | Application to extend time to file cert | Jerry J. Davis, Jr. | Granted | Docket lists Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Jul 18, 2023 | 23A39 | Application to extend time to file cert | Micah Sherif Matthews | Granted | Docket lists Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Nov 10, 2023 | 23-508 | Petition for writ of certiorari filed | Micah Sherif Matthews | Petition denied (Jan 16, 2024) | The docket shows filing + denial and Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Nov 20, 2023 | 23A435 | Application to extend time to file cert | Ilana Bangiyev | Granted | Docket lists Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Jun 10, 2024 | 23A1094 | Application to extend time to file cert | Daniel A. Madero | Granted | Docket lists Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Dec 18, 2024 | 24A601 | Application to extend time to file cert | Anne Catherine Richard | Granted | Docket lists Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Dec 20, 2024 | 24A602 | Application to extend time to file cert | Zackery Terrell | Granted | Docket lists Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Jan 2, 2025 | 24A646 | Application (emergency-type) | American Medical Equipment, Inc. | Denied | Docket lists Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Jan 19, 2025 | 24A701 | Application to extend time to file cert | Karl Hansen | Granted | Docket lists Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Feb 4, 2025 | 24-848 | Petition for writ of certiorari filed | Anne Catherine Richard | Petition denied (Apr 21, 2025) | Docket shows petition filed + denial and Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
| Apr 28, 2025 | 24-928 | Petition for writ of certiorari | Zackery Terrell | Petition denied (Apr 28, 2025) | Docket shows distribution/waiver/denial and Sirianni as Counsel of Record. (Supreme Court) |
The Court charges a filing fee for most paid petitions (commonly referenced as $300 under current practice; confirm the latest fee schedule before filing). Petitioners who qualify may seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Attorney fees for preparing a certiorari petition are separate and depend on record size and complexity.
Most petitions are denied. Odds improve when the petition presents a clear conflict, an important unsettled federal question, or a clean vehicle for decision—but no lawyer can ethically promise a grant. We evaluate vehicle quality and issue strength before recommending a filing.
Yes. Brownstone Law handles Supreme Court-related appellate matters, including petitions for writ of certiorari and associated strategy. Robert L. Sirianni Jr. has appeared as counsel of record on multiple Supreme Court docketed matters.
A loss in the court of appeals does not automatically create a strong Supreme Court case. You need counsel who can separate ordinary error-correction arguments from questions that meet the Court’s discretionary criteria—and who can meet the filing deadline.
A denial usually leaves the lower-court judgment in place. It is not a ruling on the merits. Depending on the case, other avenues—such as rehearing below (if still available), different collateral remedies, or unrelated future litigation—may still need evaluation.
The Court primarily resolves important questions of federal law and the U.S. Constitution. It does not sit to reweigh evidence or retry every dissatisfied litigant’s case.
I recently engaged Brownstone PA for legal assistance, and I couldn't be happier with the service I received. The lawyers were thorough, attentive, and always had my best interests in mind. They guided me through the legal process, explaining everything in a clear and concise manner. I felt confident in their abilities and trusted their expertise. I highly recommend Brownstone PA for their exceptional legal services.
Brownstone PA is a highly professional and reliable law firm. The lawyers I worked with were knowledgeable, approachable, and provided me with excellent legal representation. They were responsive to my concerns and kept me informed throughout the entire process. The attention to detail and dedication to achieving the best possible outcome were evident in their work. I highly recommend Brownstone PA for anyone in need of legal assistance.
I had a positive experience with Brownstone PA and their team of lawyers. They handled my case with utmost professionalism and achieved a favorable outcome. The lawyers at Brownstone PA were thorough in their approach, conducting in-depth research and providing well-crafted legal arguments. They were also compassionate and supportive throughout the process. I am grateful for their expertise and highly recommend their services.
