Whether plaintiffs challenging a licensing regime must first apply for a license to establish Article III standing, and whether the futility exception permits pre-enforcement judicial review of potentially unconstitutional licensing requirements

No question identified. : To the Honorable Elena Kagan, Circuit Justice for the Supreme Court of Nevada: Unopposed Application for an Extension of Time to File a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13.5 and 30, counsel for applicants Alvin Mansour et al.! respectfully requests a 30-day extension of time to petition for a writ of certiorari in this matter, to and including August 8, 2025. The judgment to be reviewed is of the Nevada Supreme Court, which entered its decision on January 8, 2025, Ex. A, and denied a timely petition for rehearing on April 10, 2025, Ex. B. Unless extended, the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari will expire on July 9, 2024. This Application is timely, having been filed at least 10 days before the petition is currently due. This Court’s jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Reasons for Granting an Extension A 30-day extension of time is necessary and appropriate for the Applicants to prepare and file any petition for writ of certiorari. The request is unopposed. 1. This case presents two important, recurring, and divisive questions at the intersection of constitutional rights and the Article III standing doctrine. Question 1 is about whether, to establish Article III standing, plaintiffs challenging a licensing regime must first apply for a license that the regime illegally denies them. Question 2 is about whether, if an application is generally required, the futility exception looks beyond the challenged license. The decision below threatens to insulate 1 Applicants are Alvin Mansour, Kevin Mansour, Nenad Zivkovic, Gordon Robert Allred, Perry White, Todd Manning, Anthony D’Ambrosia, John Glass, Glen Kunofsy, Edward Otocka; Guarab Reja, and James Ventura. unconstitutional licensing regimes from judicial review by expanding the threshold burdens imposed on plaintiffs seeking pre-enforcement relief and improperly narrowing the longstanding futility exception. 2. Applicants retained undersigned counsel for the purposes of filing a petition for certiorari. An extension will permit counsel to prepare a petition that best presents this case’s important questions for this Court’s consideration. Counsel is also engaged in other important representations? and will need to continue balancing commitments until the petition is filed. The State consents to the extension. Conclusion The Applicants’ request for a 30-day extension of time to petition for a writ of certiorari in this matter should be granted to and including August 8, 2025. June 27, 2025 Respectfully submitted, CLA Pd Charles R. Flores Counsel of Record Flores Law PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 364-6640 cf@chadflores.law 2 The other representations include (1) in Krell et al. v. American Bureau of Shipping et al., No. 24-20438 (5th Cir.), appellate briefing and preparation for upcoming oral argument, (2) in Megalomedia Ince. et al., v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., No. 23-20570 (5th Cir.), remanded district court proceedings for jurisdictional findings and preparation for oral argument, (3) in United States v. Jones et al., No. (D. Kan.), briefing of discovery motions regarding abrogation of attorney-client privileges, (4) in VanDerStok v. Bondi, No. 4:22-cv-00691-O (N.D. Tex.), proceedings on a motion for a preliminary injunction, (5) in Larosiere v. Wilson, No. 6:24-cv-1629 (M.D. Fla.), proceedings on a motion to dismiss and discovery motions, (6) in Webber v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00095 (S.D. Tex.), proceedings on a motion to remand, and (7) in Defense Distributed v. YouTube, LLC, No. 25-BC03B-000 (Tex. Bus. Ct. [8rd Div.), proceedings for injunctive relief.