When a case has been decided by a lower court but there are critical legal questions that remain unresolved, filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court may be the next step.
The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions each year but only selects around 100 to hear. To grab the attention of the justices and convince them that a case is worthy of review, a petition needs to be expertly crafted and compelling.
Sample Petitions for Certiorari
To demonstrate what goes into an effective petition for certiorari, we’ve collected 15 illustrative examples from real cases spanning criminal law, civil rights, intellectual property, and more.
While the details of each case are unique, they all showcase the key elements of a strong petition – a concise explanation of the legal issues at stake, arguments for why those issues are nationally important and require clarity from the high court, and polished, professional writing.
Whether you’re a lawyer preparing your first cert petition or simply interested in learning more about this crucial part of the Supreme Court process, these model petitions provide valuable insight and inspiration.
Let’s dive in and see the art of persuasive legal writing in action.
1. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Rogers v. Indiana
October Term, 2022
No. 22-196
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Marcus Rogers respectfully requests that a writ of certiorari be issued to review the judgment of the Indiana Supreme Court in this case.
Petitioner was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 12 years in prison based largely on the testimony of a single eyewitness. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction and rejected his claim that the eyewitness identification procedure used by police was unduly suggestive and violated his due process rights. In reaching that conclusion, the Indiana Supreme Court deepened an existing split among state high courts and federal courts of appeals concerning the appropriate test for determining whether eyewitness identification must be excluded. This Court should grant certiorari to resolve that split and ensure that a defendant’s right to due process in identification procedures is protected in all jurisdictions.
The question presented is:
Whether courts assessing the reliability of eyewitness identification should weigh the corrupting effect of police suggestion against the reliability factors outlined in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972), as a majority of courts do, or disregard the reliability factors entirely in cases involving police suggestion, as the Indiana Supreme Court and a minority of jurisdictions hold.
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
2. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Garcia v. United States
October Term, 2023
No. 23-52
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Juan Garcia respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case.
The petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, was found removable by an immigration judge based on a misdemeanor drug possession conviction. The Board of Immigration Appeals and Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the petitioner’s offense qualifies as an “aggravated felony” that triggers mandatory deportation and eliminates the possibility of discretionary relief from removal. That ruling conflicts with decisions of the Third, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits, which have held that to qualify as an aggravated felony, a state drug offense must meet the elements of a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Petitioner’s offense, although classified as a misdemeanor under state law, was treated as the equivalent of a federal felony.
The Court should grant certiorari to resolve the circuit conflict on this important and recurring issue of immigration law. The question of which state drug convictions count as aggravated felonies carries significant consequences for thousands of noncitizens and their families. Only this Court can ensure that the aggravated felony determination is made uniformly nationwide.
The question presented is:
Whether a state drug offense that is classified as a misdemeanor under state law but matches the elements of a felony drug crime under the federal Controlled Substances Act counts as an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes.
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
3. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Baker v. Mississippi
October Term, 2024
No. 24-87
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Lisa Baker respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Mississippi Supreme Court affirming her capital murder conviction and death sentence.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with her co-defendant, murdered the victim during an armed robbery. No physical evidence linked the petitioner to the crime scene. The jury found the petitioner guilty based primarily on the testimony of the co-defendant, who claimed that the petitioner shot the victim. The co-defendant was granted leniency in exchange for his testimony against the petitioner. In post-conviction proceedings, the petitioner presented three affidavits from witnesses who swore that the co-defendant confessed to being the sole shooter. The Mississippi Supreme Court denied the petitioner a hearing to prove her innocence, holding that the affidavits were not “conclusive” of innocence because a jury could still believe the co-defendant’s trial testimony over his alleged confessions.
The Court should grant certiorari to decide whether a court presented with evidence of actual innocence in postconviction proceedings must hold a hearing to assess the reliability of that evidence if it relies on witness credibility. The Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision conflicts with rulings of other state courts of last resort and deprives prisoners of a meaningful mechanism to prove their innocence.
The question presented is:
When a prisoner presents sworn witness statements that, if true, would establish the prisoner’s actual innocence, must a court hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the reliability of the statements if they hinge on credibility?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
4. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Castillo v. Texas
October Term, 2023
No. 23-219
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Gabriel Castillo respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the denial of his application for postconviction DNA testing.
Petitioner was convicted of murder in 2005. He requested postconviction DNA testing of blood evidence found at the crime scene. The blood evidence was central to the State’s case at trial, but it was never subjected to DNA testing because the testing technology available at the time could not yield results from the small quantity of blood. Newer, more sensitive DNA testing techniques now make it possible to test the blood evidence. The Texas courts denied the DNA testing request, holding that because the State presented other evidence of guilt at trial, DNA testing that might prove the petitioner’s innocence would not establish by a “preponderance” of the evidence that he “would not have been convicted.” That holding conflicts with decisions of several other state high courts, which have held that prisoners are entitled to postconviction DNA testing of key evidence if the testing could establish their innocence, regardless of the strength of the remaining evidence.
The Court should grant certiorari to decide whether convicted prisoners have a right to access DNA testing that has the scientific potential to prove their innocence. Access to DNA evidence is crucial to ensuring the accuracy and integrity of criminal convictions.
The question presented is:
Does a convicted prisoner have a right to postconviction DNA testing of crime-scene evidence that could conclusively prove innocence, regardless of the strength of the remaining evidence of guilt?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
5. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Lee v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago
October Term, 2022
No. 22-315
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Jeanette Lee respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in this case.
Petitioner, a public school teacher, was fired from her job after she criticized her school administration in a newspaper editorial. The Seventh Circuit held that the petitioner’s editorial was unprotected employee speech because it did not address a matter of “public concern.” That decision conflicts with rulings of the Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, which have recognized that speech by a public employee about misconduct or mismanagement in the employee’s government workplace is inherently speech on a matter of public concern. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling, if left undisturbed, would allow public employers to fire workers for bringing workplace wrongdoing to light.
The Court should grant certiorari to resolve the circuit conflict over whether a public employee’s speech about misconduct in the employee’s government workplace necessarily addresses a matter of public concern. The question is important to defining the scope of First Amendment rights for the nation’s millions of public employees.
The question presented is:
Is a public employee’s speech about significant misconduct in the employee’s government workplace necessarily speech “on a matter of public concern” entitled to First Amendment protection?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
6. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Hernandez v. Arizona
October Term, 2024
No. 24-193
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Miguel Hernandez respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court in this case.
Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder. At his trial, the prosecution called an expert witness who testified about the results of a Toolmark Identification analysis run on shell casings found at the crime scene. The expert testified that the shell casings came from a gun linked to the petitioner “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” Petitioner objected that the Toolmark Identification methodology does not produce scientifically reliable results and that its admission therefore violated Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard outlined in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Arizona Supreme Court rejected that argument and held the testimony admissible. That decision deepened a conflict among state and federal courts over whether Toolmark Identification evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted consistently with Rule 702 and Daubert.
The Court should grant certiorari to resolve the conflict in the lower courts and clarify the admissibility standard for this widely used forensic discipline. The reliability of forensic science testimony is critical to avoiding wrongful convictions.
The question presented is:
Does Toolmark Identification evidence satisfy the reliability requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
7. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Jackson v. United States
October Term, 2023
No. 23-97
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Terrell Jackson respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in this case.
Petitioner was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on § 922(g) offenders with three qualifying prior convictions for a “violent felony” or “serious drug offense.” One of the prior convictions used to enhance the petitioner’s sentence was a state conviction for reckless aggravated assault. Petitioner argued that a crime based on reckless conduct cannot qualify as a “violent felony,” which requires the “use of physical force against the person of another.” The Sixth Circuit disagreed and held that reckless aggravated assault counts as a violent felony under the ACCA. That decision entrenched a circuit conflict on the question. The issue arises frequently in ACCA cases and has significant consequences for criminal defendants.
The Court should grant certiorari to decide whether crimes based on reckless conduct can qualify as ACCA predicates. Resolving that question is important to ensuring fair, consistent application of the severe penalties mandated by the ACCA.
The question presented is:
Does a crime that can be committed with a reckless mens rea qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
8. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Patel v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
October Term, 2024
No. 24-72
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Vijay Patel respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in this case.
Petitioner, a citizen of India, obtained lawful permanent resident status based on an immigrant visa petition filed by his U.S. employer. More than five years after obtaining permanent residency, petitioner applied for naturalization. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the application, finding that the petitioner was never lawfully admitted for permanent residence because his employment-based visa petition was fraudulent. In reaching that conclusion, USCIS looked behind the petitioner’s facially valid immigrant visa and reassessed his eligibility for the visa. The Fifth Circuit upheld that action. The court acknowledged that its decision conflicted with rulings of the Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, which have held that the five-year statute of limitations in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1256(a), bars USCIS from examining an alien’s underlying visa eligibility outside the five-year limitations period.
The Court should grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split over whether USCIS has the authority to look behind a facially valid immigrant visa to reassess an alien’s eligibility for the visa after the five-year limitations period has expired. That issue is highly important to providing certainty and finality to immigrants who have made their lives in this country in reliance on their lawful permanent resident status.
The question presented is:
Does the five-year statute of limitations in 8 U.S.C. § 1256(a) bar United States Citizenship and Immigration Services from examining an alien’s eligibility for a previously issued immigrant visa, outside the limitations period, to determine the alien’s eligibility for adjustment of status or naturalization?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
9. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Davis v. FCC
October Term, 2023
No. 23-184
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Theresa Davis respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in this case.
The petitioner filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission alleging that her cable company, Comcast, violated the FCC’s net neutrality rules by throttling speeds for streaming video services. The FCC dismissed the complaint without investigation, stating that Comcast’s conduct was a reasonable network management practice. The D.C. Circuit upheld that ruling in a split decision. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the FCC was required to investigate her complaint under the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 208, before determining whether Comcast violated the net neutrality rules. The majority held that the FCC’s determination was a valid exercise of its discretion. The dissent would have held that Section 208 requires the FCC to investigate every complaint before making a merits decision.
The Court should grant certiorari to resolve the important question of whether the FCC has a mandatory statutory duty to investigate all net neutrality complaints. That question has significant implications for the enforcement of the FCC’s net neutrality rules and the rights of broadband consumers.
The question presented is:
Does 47 U.S.C. § 208 require the Federal Communications Commission to investigate every complaint alleging a violation of the Commission’s net neutrality rules before determining whether a violation occurred?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
10. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Gupta v. United States
October Term, 2024
No. 24-183
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Anita Gupta respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in this case.
Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to a federal felony charge of making a false statement on a tax return. An immigration judge found the petitioner removable based on her conviction for an “aggravated felony” involving fraud or deceit and a loss to the victim exceeding $10,000. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). The Board of Immigration Appeals and Eighth Circuit affirmed. In doing so, the Eighth Circuit held that the $10,000 loss threshold in the aggravated felony definition refers to the actual loss from the offense, not the loss specified in the statute defining the offense. That holding conflicts with decisions of the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits, which have held that only a loss exceeding $10,000 charged in the statute of conviction can satisfy the aggravated felony definition. The question has significant consequences because classification as an aggravated felon renders a noncitizen ineligible for most forms of discretionary relief from removal.
The Court should grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split on this important and recurring issue of immigration law. Whether a noncitizen has been convicted of an aggravated felony should not depend on the circuit in which the removal proceedings occur.
The question presented is:
To trigger the aggravated felony definition at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), must the $10,000 loss be an element of the statute of conviction, or can an immigration court rely on the actual loss from the offense?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
11. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Nguyen v. Garland
October Term, 2023
No. 23-221
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Khanh Nguyen respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this case.
The petitioner, a citizen of Vietnam, applied for asylum based on the persecution he suffered at the hands of the Vietnamese government due to his political opinion. The immigration judge denied the application, finding that the petitioner was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Second Circuit affirmed. In reaching its decision, the Second Circuit relied on an immigration judge’s authority to make credibility determinations based on inconsistencies between a witness’s statements and other evidence in the record, even if the inconsistencies do not go to the heart of the claim. That ruling deepened an existing circuit split. The Ninth Circuit has held that an adverse credibility finding may only be based on inconsistencies that are central to the claim. The question of the proper standard for asylum credibility determinations is recurring and important.
The Court should grant certiorari to resolve the disagreement in the lower courts and ensure that asylum claims are adjudicated under a uniform standard nationwide. Credibility is crucial to the fair resolution of asylum cases.
The question presented is:
May an immigration judge base an adverse credibility determination on inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements that do not go to the heart of the applicant’s claim?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
12. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Sanders v. Louisiana
October Term, 2024
No. 24-96
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Marcus Sanders respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court in this case.
Petitioner was arrested for a robbery he did not commit. After his arrest, police continued to interrogate the petitioner for several hours, even though he repeatedly said he did not want to talk and wanted a lawyer. During the interrogation, the petitioner made statements that the prosecution used against him at trial. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s statements were admissible because he did not unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent or his right to counsel. The court acknowledged that its decision conflicted with several other state high courts that have held that a suspect’s statements during custodial interrogation must be suppressed if the suspect indicates in any manner that he wishes to remain silent or consult an attorney.
The Court should grant certiorari to resolve the conflict on this important question of criminal procedure. The scope of a suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights during custodial interrogation should not vary based on geography.
The question presented is:
Does a suspect’s invocation of his right to remain silent or right to counsel during custodial interrogation have to be unambiguous to be effective?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
13. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Torres v. Idaho
October Term, 2023
No. 23-167
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Carlos Torres respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Idaho Supreme Court affirming his conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine.
Police found methamphetamine in the petitioner’s car during a traffic stop. Before trial, the petitioner moved to suppress the methamphetamine evidence, arguing that police lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the petitioner argued that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard when it held that a traffic stop is justified so long as the officer has reasonable suspicion that the driver committed any traffic violation, even if the violation is not the actual reason for the stop. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, deepening a split of authority on the question. Some courts hold, as the Idaho Supreme Court did, that an officer’s subjective reasons for a traffic stop are irrelevant so long as the facts give rise to reasonable suspicion of any infraction. Other courts hold that the traffic violation justifying the stop must be the real reason for the stop.
The Court should grant certiorari to resolve the conflict among lower courts on this frequently recurring issue. This Court’s precedents on the permissible justifications for a traffic stop require clarification.
The question presented is:
Is a traffic stop lawful based on reasonable suspicion of any traffic violation, even if the suspected violation did not motivate the stop?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
14. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Gonzalez v. Acme Corp.
October Term, 2024
No. 24-59
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Maria Gonzalez respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in this case.
Petitioner sued her former employer, respondent Acme Corp., for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A jury found Acme liable and awarded the petitioner backpay and compensatory damages. The district court also awarded the petitioner’s attorney a 25% fee enhancement above the lodestar due to the exceptional results achieved in the case. The First Circuit reversed the fee enhancement, holding that the lodestar amount already accounted for the results obtained and thus an enhancement was not permitted. That decision contributed to a circuit split over the permissibility of fee enhancements in cases involving exceptional success. This Court’s guidance is needed to standardize how fee awards are calculated under federal fee-shifting statutes.
The Court should grant certiorari to clarify the rules governing attorney fee enhancements and promote consistency in the enforcement of civil rights and other federal laws with fee-shifting provisions.
The question presented is:
When a plaintiff achieves exceptional success in civil rights litigation, may a court enhance the lodestar attorney fee amount to reflect that extraordinary result?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
15. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Taylor v. Social Security Administration
October Term, 2023
No. 23-259
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Petitioner Stephanie Taylor respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in this case.
The petitioner applied for Social Security disability benefits, asserting that she was unable to work due to lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the petitioner’s claim, finding that the petitioner could perform sedentary work and was therefore not disabled. In reaching that conclusion, the ALJ rejected the opinions of the petitioner’s treating physicians, who said petitioner’s impairments precluded full-time work and instead relied on the opinions of non-examining state agency consultants. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the ALJ’s decision as supported by substantial evidence. In doing so, the court applied a rule, consistent with the approach of several other circuits, that an ALJ may credit a non-examining source over a treating source based on substantial evidence in the record. By contrast, the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have held that an ALJ may only reject a treating source opinion based on contrary opinions from an examining source.
The Court should grant certiorari to resolve the disagreement among the circuits on this important issue of disability law. The weight afforded to treating physician opinions is often dispositive in a disability case.
The question presented is:
May an administrative law judge deciding a Social Security disability claim reject the opinions of a claimant’s treating physicians based on contrary opinions of non-examining state agency consultants?
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney name]
Counsel of Record
Conclusion
These 15 petitions illustrate the key components and persuasive writing techniques that go into an effective petition for certiorari.
Each petition concisely introduces the case, frames the legal issue as one that has divided lower courts requires the Supreme Court’s attention, and presents a compelling reason for the Court to grant review.
While the subjects of these petitions span a wide range of legal fields—from criminal procedure to immigration to civil rights to administrative law—they all showcase lawyers advocating for their clients at the highest level and working to shape the law on issues of national importance.
A well-written cert petition is essential to grabbing the Supreme Court’s interest and securing the opportunity to be heard in the country’s most prestigious legal forum.
These model petitions exemplify the careful research, strategic thinking, and forceful writing that define top-notch Supreme Court advocacy.
Aspiring appellate lawyers and Supreme Court practitioners can look to these petitions for guidance and inspiration as they hone their skills in drafting this crucial document.