| Petitions and applications docketed on April 02, 2026 | |||||||
| type | Caption | Docket No | Court Below | Petitioner's Counsel | Counsel's Address | Recent Filings | QP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| paid | Daisey Trust, By and Through Its Trustee Eddie Haddad
v. Federal Housing Finance Agency |
25-1144 | Ninth Circuit, No. 24-6433
Judgment: January 02, 2026 |
Jordan Tindle Smith | Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 100 N. City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, NV 89106 | [Petition] | NA |
| paid | Counsel For Responsible Nutrition
v. Letitia James, in Her Official Capacity as New York Attorney General |
25-1145 | Second Circuit, No. 24-1343
Judgment: November 13, 2025 |
Michael B. de Leeuw | Cozen O’Connor 3 World Trade Center 175 Greenwich Street, 55th Floor New York, NY 10007 | [Petition] | NA |
| paid | Angelo Pesavento
v. Eddie Bolden |
25-1146 | Seventh Circuit, No. 24-1674
Judgment: November 06, 2025 |
Myriam Zreczny Kasper | City of Chicago Department of Law 2 N. LaSalle Street Suite 580 Chicago, IL 60602 | [Petition] | NA |
| paid | Rochelle L. Smith
v. General Motors, L.L.C. |
25-1147 | Fifth Circuit, No. 24-10841
Judgment: June 17, 2025 |
Rochelle L. Smith | 409 Avenue E Dallas, TX 75203 | [Main Document] | NA |
| ifp | Jayakrishnan Nair
v. Alex Toth |
25-7135 | Ninth Circuit, No. 23-3682
Judgment: February 20, 2025 |
Jayakrishnan Nair | 304 S. Jones Blvd. Mail Box #8646 Las Vegas, NV 89139 | NA | |
| ifp | Michael M. Moffett
v. Wisconsin |
25-7136 | Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II, No. 2023AP2104
Judgment: February 05, 2025 |
Michael M. Moffett | #384291 W10237 Lake Emily Rd. P.O. Box 200 Fox Lake, WI 53933-0200 | NA | |
| ifp | Timothy Peoples, Jr.
v. Raul Machuca |
25-7137 | Ninth Circuit, No. 25-4823
Judgment: October 30, 2025 |
Timothy Peoples Jr. | H-63933 SQRC, 1 Main St. San Quentin, CA 94974 | NA | |
| ifp | Eddie James Moultrie
v. G. Edwards |
25-7138 | Eleventh Circuit, No. 24-12887
Judgment: September 11, 2025 |
Eddie James Moultrie | #J54553 Santa Rosa Correctional Institution 5850 E. Milton Rd Milton, FL 32583 | [Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] | NA |
| ifp | Pierre C. Marc
v. United States |
25-7140 | Eleventh Circuit, No. 24-12378
Judgment: November 21, 2025 |
Pierre C. Marc | 29016-509 FCC Coleman Medium P.O. Box 1032 Coleman, FL 33521 | [Petition] [Appendix] | Question(s) presented} QUESTION(S) PRESENTED - | 1. Whether due process permits a conviction for a charged drug and threshold quantity 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U. S. C.8841 (a) (1), (b) (1) (A) when the | Government's trial evidence proved only a different controlled substance (fentanyl) | | and no cocaine, and the jury nonetheless returned a verdict finding '5 kilograms or | more of cocaine." 2. “Whether a federal court of appeals may affirm a conviction by declining to review the sufficiency of the evidence because the defendant did not renew a Rule 29 motion after the Government's case, where the record reflects a compiete failure of proof on an element (identity of the controlled substance and threshold drug- quantity element)." 3. “Whether, at minimum, the court of appeals must review such a claim for plain error - | or to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, rather than treatingitas unreviewable or forfeited.” |
| ifp | Thomas Keller
v. United States |
25-7141 | Ninth Circuit, No. 23-656
Judgment: June 27, 2025 |
Todd Michael Borden | Office of the Federal Public Defender 450 Golden Gate Ave. Room 19-6884 San Francisco, CA 94102 | [Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] [Petition] [Appendix] | Question(s) presentedQUESTION PRESENTEDThe Controlled Substances Act criminalizes dispensing controlled substances, but creates an exception for authorized persons—such as physicians engaged in medical practice—who are registered with the Attorney General. 21 U.S.C. §§ 822(b), 841(a). But the legal standard that defines the boundary between lawful medical practice and unlawful drug dealing by authorized physicians is defined solely by an administrative regulation promulgated by the Attorney General: 21 C.F.R. § 1806.04(a). See Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450, 454 (2022). The question presented is: Whether the “intelligible principle” test remains the appropriate standard for evaluating delegations of legislative power when the resulting regulations define the elements of a federal crime, or whether the nondelegation doctrine requires a more stringent standard when Congress delegates to the Executive the authority to fix the boundary between lawful conduct and criminal lability. 1 |