Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case Tracker

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 60 days after filing

What's being asked

A private party asks the Supreme Court to pause (stay) a lower-court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit while the appeal continues. The case is Martin Akerman v. Warden.

What the Court did

Application (24A658) denied by the Court.

Vote not published · 9the order does not say how they voted
  1. Thomas
  2. Roberts
  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.
Days from filing to a ruling for 22 rulings on applications decided without a response since January 1, 2025. The band is the middle half, the tick the median, and the mark this application: ruled 60 days after filing.

What it means

This is a temporary order about what happens while the case is decided, not a ruling on who is right. The case continues in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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 September 24, 2026