Whether federal courts must provide meaningful judicial review and ADA accommodations when procedural irregularities and systemic non-processing of disability-related filings prevent meaningful access to judicial proceedings

No question identified. : No lower court has exercised jurisdiction to rule on Petitioner's stay or protective filings, leaving Petitioner exposed to ongoing and irreparable harm. Il. JURISDICTION This Application is submitted under: © 280U.S.C. § 2101(H (stay pending certiorari), e 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (Ali Writs Act), e Supreme Court Rule 23, and e The Court’s inherent authority to preserve its jurisdiction. Ill. INTRODUCTION AND BASIS FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF Petitioner faces immediate and ongoing harm because no tribunal—state or federal—has ruled on any of his stay requests, despite repeated filings supported by disability documentation and federal questions involving ADA access, unsigned appellate entries, and jurisdictional defects. Courts have consistently responded: “There is no stay in effect,” even though the absence of a stay results from the absence of any tribunal willing to adjudicate Petitioner’s filings, not from lack of filing. Meanwhile: * enforcement actions continue, e hearings are scheduled, e orders are entered, and e Petitioner's parental rights and legal position deteriorate while federal issuea remain pending. Standard channels of relief are therefore unavailable, and only this Court can prevent further irreparable harm. IV.