No. 25-7645October Term 2025Petition Pending
In Re Lidia M. Orrego, Petitioner
Lidia M.
Case status
- Current stage
- Petition Pending
- Latest event
- Petition pending
- Decision timing
- No decision timeline until the Court agrees to hear the case.
- What it's about
Lidia M. Orrego asks the Supreme Court to issue a supervisory writ directing action in her case after judges who had recused allegedly issued later rulings and the Second Circuit declined to vacate those rulings or promptly resolve her reconsideration request. The case concerns whether post-recusal judicial acts are legally void and whether mandamus is available to require the appellate court to act.
Question presented
1. Whether federal judges who have formally recused themselves under 28 U.S.C. § 455 may continue to exercise judicial power by issuing purported post-recusal rulings, and if such acts are void ab initio? 2. Whether an appellate courts refusal or failure to vacate jurisdictionally void purported post-recusal acts —through denial of mandamus and prolonged inaction on reconsideration —warrants issuance of supervisory mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)? 3. Whether prolonged inaction by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on an unopposed Motion for Reconsideration or En Banc Review, combined with denial of ancillary relief, constitutes constructive obstruction of justice, abuse of discretion, or violation of due process, and whether supervisory mandamus is appropriate to compel immediate resolution and prevent irreparable harm?
- Case path
Petition pending
- Area
Petition for review pending
Briefing
What it's about
Lidia M. Orrego asks the Supreme Court to order action after judges who had recused themselves allegedly issued later rulings. She also challenges the Second Circuit's refusal to vacate those rulings or promptly resolve her reconsideration request.
Argument
Oral argument has not been scheduled, and no substantive justice or advocate reactions are available yet.
Impact
The case could clarify whether a judge's actions after formal recusal must be treated as legally invalid. That could affect litigants who believe a disqualified judge continued to decide part of their case.
What is at stake in In Re Lidia M. Orrego?
The petition asks whether rulings issued after a judge formally recuses must be treated as invalid. It also asks whether the Supreme Court can require appellate action.
Who could be affected by the Orrego case?
Litigants who believe a recused federal judge continued deciding their case could be affected. Federal courts could also face clearer limits on post-recusal actions.
What happens next in In Re Lidia M. Orrego?
The next public milestone would be oral argument or another scheduling action. The Court has not set a decision window.
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Sep 3, 2026
- Method
- Methodology