Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case TrackerThe Court, in plain English

Emergency application

Martin Akerman v. Warden

Denied
No. 24A658Stay applicationFiled by a private partyPresented to Justice KaganFrom United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

What did the Court do?

The Court denied the request on March 3, 2025: the lower court's ruling stays in effect while the appeal continues.

Emergency rulings are temporary and do not decide the underlying case.

Filed Ruled 70 days after filing

What's being asked

Martin Akerman, a private party, asks the Supreme Court to pause (stay) a ruling by the Ninth Circuit. The record does not explain what the dispute is about or what the lower-court ruling said.

What the Court did

The Court turned down (denied) Akerman’s request for emergency help: a temporary pause (stay) of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. The order does not decide who should win the underlying case. The Court did not publish how the justices voted.

Vote not published · 9the order does not say how they voted
  1. Roberts
  2. Thomas
  3. Alito
  4. Sotomayor
  5. Kagan
  6. Gorsuch
  7. Kavanaugh
  8. Barrett
  9. Jackson
The order does not say how any justice voted, as is usual on the emergency docket.
Half of 302 rulings on applications decided without a response came 8 to 28 days after filing, and the median was 14 days; this one was ruled on 70 days after filing.

What it means

An emergency ruling addresses only short-term relief; it does not decide who wins the underlying case. The Ninth Circuit ruling is not paused, and proceedings can continue there. The docket lists no related Supreme Court case, and no argument is set.

Sources

Facts on this page come from the Supreme Court docket, orders, and opinions for No. 24A658. The answers restate that record in plain words; explainer copy is written from the record and the filings only.

Checked October 3, 2026