Here’s the legalese version from our attorneys…
Cert Petition v. Notice of Appeal: With the adverse Seventh Circuit decision now final, the next step is to ask the Supreme Court to review the case by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. There is no notice of appeal that can be filed at this level; unlike our appeal to the Seventh Circuit, review by the Supreme Court is not automatic. The Court generally grants review only in a fraction of cases and when a petition presents an important question of federal law, when there is a disagreement among the courts of appeals or state supreme courts on an important legal issue, or when another compelling reason for review exists. See Sup. Ct. R. 10. Among other things, the petition must explain (clearly and persuasively) why the case satisfies the standards for discretionary review. Sup. Ct. R. 14(h). For that reason, it takes a significant amount of time to prepare a cert petition, suitable for SCOTUS review.
Filing Deadline: A cert petition generally must be filed within 90 days after the circuit court enters its judgment. The deadline runs from the date judgment is entered—not from the date the court issues its mandate. Sup. Ct. R. 13. Here, the Seventh Circuit issued its order and judgment on July 9, 2026, so our petition is currently due in about 2 months. If additional time is needed—which is quite common for reasons of both workflow and strategy—the Court may grant an extension of up to 60 days for good cause. Any application for an extension generally must be filed at least 10 days before the petition is due, absent extraordinary circumstances. Sup. Ct. R. 13. Clement & Murphy will probably seek an extension.
Effect of the Seventh Circuit’s Mandate: Although a cert petition may still be filed, the Seventh Circuit’s mandate will generally issue, and jurisdiction returns to the district court. A party intending to file a cert petition may ask the circuit court to stay the mandate pending the filing and disposition of their petition—but only by showing that the petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay. Fed. R. App. P. 41(d).
In this case, the parties in the consolidated appeals did not move to stay the mandate because there was no practical basis for doing so. A stay is generally intended to preserve the status quo while the Supreme Court considers whether to grant cert. Here, however, there is no preliminary injunction that would dissolve once jurisdiction returns to the district court. And the Seventh Circuit stayed enforcement of the district court’s judgment pending appeal, meaning that the challenged law remained in effect throughout the appeal anyway. So, allowing the mandate to issue does not alter the existing legal landscape or create an immediate change in the parties’ rights or duties. Under these circumstances, there was no meaningful status quo for a stay of the mandate to preserve and, correspondingly, little basis for demonstrating the “good cause” required by Rule 41(d).