Supreme Court sets date to consider whether to review Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Source: Deadline: Legal Blog

The Supreme Court has officially set a date — Sept. 29 — to consider at a private conference whether it will review Ghislaine Maxwell’s challenge to her sex trafficking convictions.

This typical scheduling development might not normally be relevant to national political news. But Maxwell is at the center of a controversy stemming from the Trump administration’s refusal to release all information related to Jeffrey Epstein, the late disgraced financier. Maxwell was convicted of conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse minors.

Indeed, her lawyers referenced her pending petition in a letter Tuesday to the U.S. House Oversight Committee. Responding to the committee’s bid to depose her, the lawyers said they wanted to put off any congressional testimony until after her petition is resolved (or if President Donald Trump grants her clemency first).

To be clear, this scheduling development is normal. It might be the only normal thing to happen in the Epstein saga. All it means is that the justices will consider her petition alongside others as the court returns from summer break ahead of the new term that starts in October.

Read more: https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-ghislaine-maxwell-review-private-conference-rcna221981

---

Supreme Court sets date to consider whether to review Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal - MSNBC

apple.news/AufAYOJLCSMu...

— (@oc88.bsky.social) 2025-07-30T18:14:20.966Z

[Smilo]

1. Normal

But quite convenient timing.

[onenote]

23. Convenient? It's simply the date of the first scheduling conference of the fall SCOTUS term

It's the date on which they will decide whether to grant or deny a very large number of pending petitions for cert that weren't acted on before the end of the prior term. If the past is any guide -- and it probably is -- they will grant a relative handful of cert petitions, including some filed "in forma pauperis" -- and will deny hundreds upon hundreds of other petitions and also issue orders granting or denying various other motions such as motions to file under seal, motions for rehearing, etc etc.

Whether they grant or deny Maxwell's petition -- which the Trump DOJ has opposed -- is an open question.

And, FWIW, here'a an example of what the order emanating from the opening scheduling conference in September will look like:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100724zor_4gdj.pdf

[chelsea0011]

2. What???

She is a Monster. When has any SC been this proactive?

[onenote]

5. She filed a petition for certiorari raising a legal issue.

This isn't the court being proactive. It's the court following SOP.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

26. You know.... Like they do.

Where ever the orange ass is on the line.

[onenote]

29. The fact you don't understand standard court procedure doesn't make it a conspiracy.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

44. We shall see

[bluestarone]

3. NOTHING is normal with this fucking court

NOTHING. This should never even be heard. THAT would have been normal.

[onenote]

6. All that is being considered is a petition for certiorari. SOP

Maybe you're not familiar with Supreme Court procedures.

Maxwell filed a petition for certiorari arguing that there is a split in the circuits on a legal issue key to her case -- whether a non-prosecution agreement entered into in one district is binding on other districts.

Petitions for cert are considered in conferences held by the justices. Most are denied. A relatively small number are granted.

If the court denies her petition for cert -- something the Trump administration has argued it should do -- Maxwell loses and she stays in prison. If the court grants her petition, the standard operating procedure would be for the court to schedule briefing and oral argument. It doesn't necessarily mean that in the end they will rule in her favor. The Court not infrequently affirms an appellate decision after granting cert to consider an appeal.

[DallasNE]

15. Isn't This Caused By The Recent Supreme Court Ruling

That means rulings by a District Court Judge in many cases do not apply in all 50 States, so the Supreme Court has to revisit and clarify its recent ruling. Who didn't see that coming?

[onenote]

16. No.

Not related. Not cited by any party. No connection whatsoever.

[303squadron]

4. This guarantees the story will continue to have legs

Nt

[bluestarone]

7. Just for the record, WHO decided?

, and why wasn't it mentioned?

[turbinetree]

8. The shadow docket knows..............

[onenote]

10. This isn't a shadow docket case. Its a run of the mill petition for certiorari --

and whether it will be granted or denied will be decided at conference. Even if it is granted -- not a far fetched idea since the case raises a specific legal question on which the circuits are split, which often is the basis for granting cert -- it doesn't mean that the case, after being scheduled for briefing and argument -- won't result in the court affirming the appeals court decision that Maxwell is challenging.

[turbinetree]

14. Thanks.............

[onenote]

9. Nothing was decided. It was a standard administrative move scheduling the conference at which the petition

will be considered -- along with any number of other petitions.

Again, I'm going to assume you simply don't know how Supreme Court procedure works.

[bluestarone]

11. Your right, i do nopt understand how Supreme court works, BUT

My question was did a judge decide to hear her case? If not ok, but if one did, who was it?

[onenote]

12. No. A decision on whether to hear her case won't be made until September when the court considers her petition

At that time, if four of the nine decide the case is "cert-worthy" they will schedule it for briefing and oral argument after which a decision on the merits will be reached. They will probably announce whether they will hear his case -- along with a number of other cases that are scheduled for conference in late September -- when the new court session begins in October.

[bluestarone]

13. TYVM! I always thought before any decision a judge had to decide to hear a case.

I apologize, but i'm so upset to see what's happening to our country. so upset!

[Hornedfrog2000]

17. So repubs want to have

The SC decide if pedos are ok?

[onenote]

19. Not what the case is about. And the administration has opposed her petition for cert.

[Jughead]

18. How does

The average American sitting in jail get a looksie appeal from the Supreme Court?
I mean come on.

[onenote]

20. Average Americans file petitions for cert all the time. Around 8000 to 10,000 per year.

Of these, around 1200 pay the required $300 filing fee. Most of the rest are filed "in forma pauperis" and the fee is waived. Only around 80 to 100 petitions are granted per year, with the rest being denied.

[bluestarone]

27. Sorry, but i'm still confused, by this comment, "the rest are denied"

What criteria is used, and who denies? Could her request have been denied? Just trying to understand just how this works, if you don't mind my question.

[onenote]

30. The court -- assisted by their clerks -- reviews the petitions and if at least four justices deem a petition cert-worthy

they grant cert, which then leads to the case being scheduled for written briefing and then oral argument, followed eventually by a decision on the merits. The fact that a petition for certiorari is granted doesn't necessarily mean that the petitioner is going to win on the merits. The full court might decide to affirm the challenged lower court ruling.

[bluestarone]

32. Ok, so four SC justices reviewed this? (with their clerks)

If i understanding this, it was (4) Supreme Court judges reviewed this?

[Ms. Toad]

39. No.

That's what will happen at the conference. Or not. They could reject the case.

When Court is in session, there are two conferences scheduled per week – one on Wednesday afternoon and one on Friday afternoon. At their Wednesday conference, the Justices talk about the cases heard on Monday. At their Friday conference, they discuss cases heard on Tuesday and Wednesday. When Court is not in session, no Wednesday conference is held.
. . .
According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc. The Chief Justice calls the session to order and, as a sign of the collegial nature of the institution, all the Justices shake hands. The first order of business, typically, is to discuss the week's petitions for certiorari, i.e., deciding which cases to accept or reject.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-court-procedures

[bluestarone]

45. I'm not asking question to argue with you, but rather trying to understand exactly their process. So my final questions

You say "they grant cert" I just would like to know who "THEY" actually are? Do we know which persons decided this CERT? That's what i'm not understanding. TY for understanding my dumbness in this area.

[UniqueUserName]

28. Would you further explain. . .

. . .how Maxwell's petition merits being one of the 80 to 100 granted out of the ~10000 submitted.

I am 100% certain that you have more knowledge on this than I do. But this is what most people are questioning. It is also why people are saying rich people have different access to the system.

I don't mean to be attacking you. But from my perspective it seems like you say this is just "normal procedure" and then at the same time say only a very small percentage of these get granted. For a lay person like myself this seems like special treatment.

[onenote]

31. I don't know if it merits being one that will be granted. We won't know if it is or isn't granted until early October

when the court publishes an order listing the cases it has decided to hear -- i.e., petition for cert granted and those it has decided not to hear -- meaning cert denied -- in its September 29 scheduling conference. That order will address hundreds of petitions.

Most cases don't get heard because they don't raise issues that the Court finds 'cert-worthy' -- particularly cases challenging a lower court decision that raises a novel issue or that is at odds with prior precedent or that reflects a split in opinion between different circuit courts. Most petitions simply seek review claiming the lower court got it wrong -- but the Supreme Court doesn't second guess every appeals court decision.

My opinion, for whatever its worth, is that the court will deny her petition, mostly because the government's arguments seem more persuasive to me -- namely that the decision below can be affirmed without having to resolve the split in the circuits on which Maxwell bases her petition (she argues that some circuits would hold that the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein and the Florida US Attorney's office would bar her from having been prosecuted in New York, while in other circuits it wouldn't. Since Epstein himself was prosecuted in another circuit, it suggests that the intent of the non-prosecution agreement was to prevent prosecution in Florida, not anywhere else.

But I could be wrong.

[bluestarone]

33. Sorry but again i'm saying

THIS COULD already have been denied, and they didn't. That's how i see it after reading your responses.

[Ms. Toad]

38. No -

The conference on 9/29 is when they will make the decision to grant, or not grant, her petition. No decisions about taking or denying the case happen before that date.

[onenote]

40. No it couldn't.

The rules set the schedule for when the petition is filed, when a response is due and when a reply is due. Nothing happens before that cycle is completed. The response by the government to her petition was filed on July 14. Maxwell filed her reply on July 28. It was set for consoderation during the first scheduling conference that will take place before the Court's fall term. No pending petition for cert will be addressed until that scheduling conference.

[Ms. Toad]

41. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting here. n/t

[onenote]

42. Thanks. I'm actually a member of the supreme court bar and have participated -- but not argued --

in a number of supreme court cases over my 40+ year career. i get that non-lawyers -- and maybe even some lawyers -- don't fully understand the certiorari procedure, which is why I keep trying to explain it to those who see conspiracies lurking in anything and everything.

[Ms. Toad]

43. I hit a couple of threads on it yesterday or the day before.

But I've been busy doing my retirement gig of baking bread for the local farmer's market since shortly after the rumors started flying over her reply brief.

I've had my fingerprints on multiple amici briefs (my marriage is cited in more than one) and my research and analysis is in one of my brother's (death row appeal) cases. As an IP attorney I have little court experience. But teaching all of the subject matter tested on the bar exam for a decade gives me a leg up in breadth of knowledge.

And you're right about how little even most lawyers know about things outside their areas of expertise. Given how few cases the Supreme Court agrees to hear, it is outside of the practical experience of most attorneys.

[Ms. Toad]

37. It has NOT been granted.

The September 29 date is when some portion of the 10,000 submitted (including Maxwell's) will be evaulated. At that time they will decide whehter she is one of the 80-100 granted.

Petitioning for cert - and having that petition evaluated to determine whether to grant it or not is what is absolutely routine. That's where we are. She is not (at least not at this time) one of the 80-100 granted.

[Ms. Toad]

35. My brother,

A Native American on death row, no college education, no political connections, mid-20s at the time of his conviction, represented by a public defender, not only had (at least) two scheduling hearings before the Supreme Court, it agreed to grant cert twice, and overturned his sentencing on the first case but denied his request for habeas relief (reversing the appellate court's grant of his habeas petition).

That's how the process works. If you are convicted, you have your appeal(s) of right. That means as long as you follow the rules they have to hear your appeal. And, once those are exhausted, you can request an en banc hearing at the appellate level, and once your options there are exhausted, you can petition the Supreme Court to hear your case. They only take a handful of cases every year. They favor cases in which there is a circuit split (as here), or a novel question of law (as in my brother's case), or cases in which a decision was issued by a lower court before a significant sea change at the Supreme Court (my brother's second round at the Supreme Court).

[70sEraVet]

21. I wonder if any of the Supremes have visited any Epstein properties?

Clarence seems like he might have 'taken advantage'.

[dlk]

22. The appropriate parties will be paid

And Maxwell will ultimately be released, unfortunately.

[MW67]

24. G O P stands for

Guarding Old Pedophiles

[SidneyR]

25. Elites get to have their case go to the Supreme Court.

It's not something ordinary Americans get to have as a virtually automatic benefit. It's for the rich and powerful. Fake democracy bends over backwards to accommodate elite requests.

[bluestarone]

34. Don't know, maybe some of these judges

are in some of the VIDEO's? Hell, who knows anymore.

[Ms. Toad]

36. First - the court has NOT yet decided to hear her case.

Second, all people who have been convicted of a crime (or at least a federal crime or a state crime with federal issues) ultimately have the right to file a petition for certiorari after exhausting all of their remedies at the appellate court. If they follow the rules for filing the petition (timeliness, form, etc.), the Supreme Court evaluates whether to grant the petition (hear the case).

Most are denied, but a few are granted. and it is not just the rich and powerful. My brother, with zero political connections, with a public defender (i.e. he was appointed his attorney under the "if you cannot afford (an attorney) one will be appointed for you" phrase popularized on crime shows, had his case heard by the Supreme court twice.