Emergency application
Pausing an appeals court order
Carl Gordon v. Philip Gutierrez, Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California
Has the Court ruled?
Not yet. The Court has not ruled on the request.
It was filed July 31, 2026.
What's being asked
Carl Gordon, a private party, asks the Supreme Court to take back and temporarily pause the Ninth Circuit's mandate (the appeals court's order). The record does not explain the underlying dispute or what the mandate ordered.
What happens next
The refiled request is pending; no ruling on it is recorded, and the Court can act at any time, with or without an explanation. No response deadline was requested; there is no full-Court referral or administrative stay (temporary pause), and no argument is set. The Court can approve Gordon's request, reject it, or approve only part of it.
What it means
If approved, Gordon's request would take back and temporarily pause the Ninth Circuit's mandate, but would not decide who wins the underlying case. The record does not say what proceedings, if any, continue in the Ninth Circuit. The docket lists no related case on the main legal questions, and no argument is set.
Sources
Facts on this page come from the Supreme Court docket, orders, and opinions for No. 26A167. The answers restate that record in plain words; explainer copy is written from the record and the filings only.