type	Caption	Docket No	Court Below	Petitioner's Counsel	Counsel's Address	Recent Filings	QP
Petitions and applications docketed on March 20, 2026
paid	Ryan O’Donnell v. City of Chicago, Illinois	25-1098	Seventh Circuit, No. 24-2946 Judgment: December 22, 2025	Leonard A. Zolna	60 Hunt Trail Barrington, IL 60010	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented 1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED If a driver has two unpaid parking tickets, the City of Chicago will impound the driver’s vehicle and sell it. The City keeps the sales proceeds without offset- ting the ticket debt or refunding the surplus. This practice applies to all vehicles registered to the driver, including vehicles that were never ticketed, and all fu- ture vehicles purchased after any infraction. The questions presented are: Isthis practice an unconstitutional taking? Does the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amend- ment place any limit on the ability of a local govern- ment to confiscate property under its police power?
paid	James Saylor v. Rob Jeffreys, Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services	25-1102	Eighth Circuit, No. 23-3414 Judgment: March 19, 2025	James M. Saylor	#36500 Tecumseh State Correctional Institution PO Box 900 Tecumseh, NE 68450-0900	[Main Document]	NA
paid	Department of Government Efficiency Service v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia	25-1103	District of Columbia Circuit, No. 25-5130 Judgment: July 14, 2025	D. John Sauer	Solicitor General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001	[Petition]	NA
ifp	Ethan Jenkins v. Texas	25-7074	Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, No. 14-23-00740-CR Judgment: May 15, 2025	Ethan Jenkins	#02471588 John B. Connally Unit 899 FM 632 Kenedy, TX 78119	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented \| \| -QUESTION(S) PRESENTED \| TL. pis tre 4 a exaS C vine Nalding that he net rion AQdea\S exe oA tertvioner Obtection fy PTPerly GVerrded Ss} \ . . \| 0 Khe Stakemen* Made he —_ ~’ Lhe Texas Cour of Criminal AQPealS err \n ‘ ‘dwn Kyat Khe yi al Cour DroPerly Cad Ye indickmenk and allowed ne Sve Ay Ole Po Ane OP Vs A\ss ANWn4 \he Shade aN Vn ver Jar O \arian cel
ifp	Zachary Taylor Bush v. United States	25-7075	Sixth Circuit, No. 25-1592 Judgment: March 10, 2026	Michael Martin Losavio	Michael Losavio, Attorney at Law 1642 Jaeger Avenue Louisville, KY 40205	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Question I- Was Zach Bush’s Sentence Was Procedurally Unreasonable and Violative of Due Process Where the Presentence Report Offense Level Calculation 1) Erroneously Added Four (4) Points for Its Use In Connection with Another Felony Offense Even Though He Was Not Indicted for Such Conduct Nor Did He Admit to Such Conduct When Entering His Plea of Guilty and denied having a firearm at his Sentencing and 2) Erroneously added Two (2) Points for the Use of a Stolen Firearm Even Though He Was Not Indicted for Such Conduct Nor Did He Admit to Such Conduct When Entering His Plea of Guilty and there was only a statement on this in the Report even though Bush denied he had a firearm at his Sentencing? Question II- Was Zachary Bush’s mental condition fully and justly considered in his sentencing and were his efforts at good conduct while incarcerated considered in his sentencing, or was clear evidence of mental health issues on Bush’s part ignored such that a request for consideration of that in sentencing as a variance or downward departure was improvidently denied without a ruling on downward departure as to create a procedural and substantive error in his sentence where the trial court significantly departed upward focused on deterrence and punishment? _2-
ifp	Lewis Edward Pittman v. United States	25-7076	Fourth Circuit, No. 25-4381 Judgment: December 18, 2025	Patrick L. Bryant	Office of the Federal Public Defender 1650 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(¢)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the Petitioner. 1