Whether the First Amendment and due process protections limit a federal court's ability to impose sanctions on attorneys for filing election-related litigation challenging electoral procedures

No question identified. : 1 To Justice Elena Kagan, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, Petitioners Andrew D. Parker and Parker Daniels Kibort LLC respectfully move for an extension of time to file a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered on March 14, 2025. Petitioners sought rehearing by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 28, 2025. The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioners’ request for rehearing on August 21, 2025. A copy of the panel opinion and order denying rehearing are filed herewith as Exhibits 1 and 2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Petitioners request an extension of sixty 2 days so that a petition for writ of certiorari will be timely if filed by January 18, 2026. If not extended, Petitioners’ time to file a petition for writ of certiorari will expire on November 19, 2025. Petitioners request extension of the deadline to provide retained counsel adequate time for preparation of a petition. October 30, 2025 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Andrew D. Parker Andrew D. Parker Parker Daniels Kibort LLC 888 Colwell Building 123 North Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 parker@parkerdk.com (612) 355-4100 Counsel for Petitioners Exhibits to Application Exh. 1 Ninth Circuit Order Denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Dissent from Denial of Petition for Rehearing (August 21, 2025) Exh. 2 Ninth Circuit Panel Order Affirming District Court (March 14, 2025) Exhibit 1 Case: 23-16022, 08/21/2025, ID: 12936657, DktEntry: 43, Page 1 of 26 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KARI LAKE; MARK FINCHEM, No. 23-16022 Plaintiffs, D.C. No. 2:22-cvand 00677-JJT ANDREW D. PARKER; PARKER DANIELS KIBORT, LLC; KURT B. ORDER OLSEN; OLSEN LAW, PC, Counsel for Plaintiffs, Appellants, Vv. BILL GATES, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors; CLINT HICKMAN, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors; JACK SELLERS, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, THOMAS GALVIN, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors; STEVE GALLARDO, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Case: 23-16022, 08/21/2025, ID: 12936657, DktEntry: 43, Page 2 of 26 2 LAKE V. GATES and ADRIAN FONTES, Arizona Secretary of State; MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; REX SCOTT, as a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors; MATT HEINZ, as a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors; SHARON BRONSON, as a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors; STEVE CHRISTY, as a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors; ADELITA GRIJALVA, as a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors; PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendants. Filed August 21, 2025 Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ronald M. Gould, and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges. Order; Dissent by Judge VanDyke Case: 23-16022, 08/21/2025, ID: 12936657, DktEntry: 43, Page 3 of 26 LAKE V. GATES 3 SUMMARY* Sanctions The panel denied a petition for panel rehearing and denied a petition for rehearing en banc in a case concerning Arizona’s voting system in which the panel affirmed the district court’s sanctions order under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against plaintiffs’ lead attorneys. Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge VanDyke, joined by Judges Callahan, R. Nelson, Collins, Lee and Bumatay, wrote that two reasons independently made this case worthy of en banc review. First, the district court and the panel badly misapplied the standards for finding the attorneys’ conduct sanctionable by reading the complaint out of context and in the light least favorable to plaintiffs. Second, this court’s refusal to grant en banc review will be construed as implicitly blessing the district court’s weaponization of sanctions to chill politically d