This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The petitioner argues that there is a distinction between appellate jurisdiction under 2104 and the original writ of certiorari that would lie in this Court in some instances.
According to Mr. Kise, filing a petition for certiorari does not automatically stay district‑court actions; a stay may be granted later.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the Court was asked how many post‑conviction collateral‑review petitions are granted, indicating interest in the frequency of stays.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Stevens asked whether the application would be pending during the period that the case is under advisement in this Court.
Justice Scalia asked whether the petition for certiorari is the application.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Gary Lawrence)
According to Petitioner, there is a distinction between appellate jurisdiction under 2104 and the original writ of certiorari that would lie in this Court in some instances.
According to Mr. Kise, filing a petition for certiorari does not automatically stay district‑court proceedings; a stay may be granted later.
According to Mr. Kise, time is consumed by the Rule 4 screening process, determining whether the petition meets formal requirements before any stay can be considered.
According to Ms. Bonner, statistical analysis shows the petitioner filed his petition within days of the average filing time before AEDPA, suggesting prompt action.
According to Ms. Bonner, the Court controls the timing of review; once a petition is filed, it is either decided within 90 days or the petitioner is out of court.
Respondent (Florida)
According to Ms. Bonner, for statutory tolling purposes, the respondent argues that petitioners must file both a state‑court petition and a federal petition, or they forfeit the right to one.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Scalia asked whether the petition for certiorari is the “application.”
Justice Breyer asked about the language in 2244(d)(2).
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts inquired about statistics on how many post‑conviction collateral‑review petitions are granted.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy noted that a protective petition would have to be filed in the district court.
Justice Stevens asked whether the application would be pending while the case is under advisement.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether district‑court habeas actions could proceed while certiorari is pending.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether a district judge would wait for the Supreme Court’s disposition of the cert petition.
According to Justice Scalia, except in capital cases, defendants may lack incentive to delay.
- [1] 22be0983e83f8179533a-r1-60f83a2440e187c2.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 22be0983e83f8179533a-r1-60f83a2440e187c2.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 22be0983e83f8179533a-r1-60f83a2440e187c2.pdf, p. 21
- [4] 22be0983e83f8179533a-r1-60f83a2440e187c2.pdf, p. 22
- [5] 22be0983e83f8179533a-r1-60f83a2440e187c2.pdf, p. 24
- [6] 22be0983e83f8179533a-r1-60f83a2440e187c2.pdf, p. 39
- [7] 22be0983e83f8179533a-r1-60f83a2440e187c2.pdf, p. 40
- [8] 22be0983e83f8179533a-r1-60f83a2440e187c2.pdf, p. 49
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens noted that the state's interest in moving capital cases forward is strong.
According to Mr. Kise, mr. Kise stated that filing a petition for certiorari does not automatically stay district‑court proceedings.
Chief Justice Roberts asked for statistics on how many post‑conviction collateral‑review petitions are granted.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 22be0983e83f8179533a-r1-60f83a2440e187c2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.