[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-301427-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":80,"doc-detail-301427-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","emergency-application-for-stay-emergency-application","EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY - Emergency Application","","Emergency Application for Stay submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States by Dr. Michael P. Ward, Dr. Kelli Ward, and Mole Medical Services, P.C., seeking a stay pending appeal. The filing identifies the underlying district court posture, the denial of injunction pending appeal by a split-panel in the Ninth Circuit on October 22, 2022, and related proceedings. It includes corporate disclosure per Supreme Court Rule 29 and outlines arguments addressing certiorari likelihood, reversal or mandamus prospects, irreparable harm, and balance of equities and harms.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/emergency-application-for-stay-emergency-application/301427/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/emergency-application-for-stay-emergency-application/301427.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Jake","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-22","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":22},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"Who are the applicants and respondents in this emergency stay application?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"Applicants are Dr. Michael P. Ward, Dr. Kelli Ward, and Mole Medical Services, P.C. Respondents include Rep. Bennie G. Thompson and related entities, including the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and T-Mobile USA, Inc.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"What procedural event led to the emergency request for a stay?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"Applicants sought an injunction pending appeal in the appellate court, which was denied by a split-panel decision dated October 22, 2022, with a ten-page dissent by Judge Ikuta.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What main arguments support granting the stay?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"The application argues that there is a reasonable probability of at least four justices considering the issue for certiorari, a fair prospect of reversal or a mandamus petition being granted, irreparable harm absent a stay, and that the balance of equities and relative harms favors a stay.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},301427,1790096382,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,88,93,98,103,108,113,117,122],{"id":84,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":127},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":114,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":22,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":141},962084928904,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","| In the\u003Cbr>Supreme Court of the United States\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>DR. MICHAEL P. WARD, D.O. and DR. KELLI WARD, D.O., and MOLE MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., an Arizona Professional Corporation,\u003Cbr>Applicants,\u003Cbr>v.\u003Cbr>BENNIE G. THOMPSON, et al.,\u003Cbr>Respondents.\u003Cbr>To The honorable elena Kagan, associaTe JusTice of The supreme courT of The uniTed sTaTes and circuiT JusTice of The ninTh circuiT |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY |  |\n| AlexAnder KolodIn\u003Cbr>dAvIllIer lAw Group, llC 4105 North 20th Street, Suite 110 Phoenix, AZ 85016\u003Cbr>(602) 730-2985\u003Cbr>[akolodin@davillierlawgroup.com](akolodin@davillierlawgroup.com)[ ](akolodin@davillierlawgroup.com)Admission Pending | lAurIn h. MIlls Counsel of Record\u003Cbr>sAMeK | werther | MIlls llC 2000 Duke Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314\u003Cbr>(703) 547-4693\u003Cbr>[laurin@samek-law.com](laurin@samek-law.com)\u003Cbr>[B](BrAnt C. hAdAwAy)[rAnt](BrAnt C. hAdAwAy)[ C. h](BrAnt C. hAdAwAy)[AdAwAy](BrAnt C. hAdAwAy), B.C. s. Special Counsel to the\u003Cbr>Davillier Law Group hAdAwAy, pllC 2425 Lincoln Avenue Miami, FL 33133\u003Cbr>(305) 389-0336 |\n| Attorneys for Applicants |  |\n\n316603  \nA  \n(800) 274-3321 •(800) 359-6859  \nPARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS  \nThe parties to the proceeding below are:  \nApplicants, Dr. Michael P. Ward, Dr. Kelli Ward, and Mole Medical Services, P.C., were Plaintiffs in the district court and Appellants in the court of appeals.  \nIn the district court, Applicants moved for and were denied a motion for injunction pending appeal or, in the alternative, an administrative injunction. Applicants filed an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal in the appellate court, which was denied by a split-panel decision dated October 22, 2022.1 Judge Ikuta wrote a ten-page dissent.  \nRespondents are Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, in his official capacity as Chairman of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, a committee of the House of Representatives, and T-Mobile USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Applicants were Defendants in the district court and are the Appellants in the appellate court.  \n1 The Ninth Circuit issued its decision in a very unusual Saturday evening ruling at 7:37 p.m., Eastern time.  \nThe related proceedings below are:  \n1. Dr. Michael P. Ward, D.O, et al v. Bennie G. Thompson, et al, No. 22-16473 (9th Cir.)– Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal Denied on October 22 , 2022.  \n2. Dr. Michael P. Ward, D.O, et al v. Bennie G. Thompson, et al, Case No.  \n3:22-cv-08015-PCT-DJH (D. Ariz.)– Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal Denied on October 7, 2022.  \nCORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT  \nPer Supreme Court Rule 29, Applicant Mole Medical Services, P.C. states that it is a privately held Arizona professional corporation and has no parent or subsidiary.  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nOPINIONS BELOW................................................................................................12  \nJURISDICTION....................................................................................................... 12  \nCONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..............13  \nBACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .............................................13  \nARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 16  \nI. THERE IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT FOUR JUSTICES WILL CONSIDER THE ISSUE SUFFICIENTLY MERITORIOUS TO GRANT CERTIORARI..............................................17  \nII. THERE IS A FAIR PROSPECT THAT A MAJORITY OF  \nTHE COURT WOULD VOTE TO REVERSE THE ORDER BELOW OR, ALTERNATIVELY, A FAIR PROSPECT THAT THE COURT WOULD GRANT A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS............21  \nIII. APPLICANTS WILL BE IRREPARABLY HARMED ABSENT A STAY...........................................................................................................2","cbCaicOU5g5aeb55","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaicOU5g5aeb55","pdf",10602041,94,"English","# TABLE OF CONTENTS\n## OPINIONS BELOW\n## JURISDICTION\n## CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED\n## BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY\n## ARGUMENT\n## I. THERE IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT FOUR JUSTICES WILL CONSIDER THE ISSUE SUFFICIENTLY MERITORIOUS TO GRANT CERTIORARI\n## II. THERE IS A FAIR PROSPECT THAT A MAJORITY OF THE COURT WOULD VOTE TO REVERSE THE ORDER BELOW OR, ALTERNATIVELY, A FAIR PROSPECT THAT THE COURT WOULD GRANT A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS\n## III. APPLICANTS WILL BE IRREPARABLY HARMED ABSENT A STAY\n## IV. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES AND RELATIVE HARMS FAVOR A STAY\n## CONCLUSION\n# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES","[{\"question\":\"Who are the applicants and respondents in this emergency stay application?\",\"answer\":\"Applicants are Dr. Michael P. Ward, Dr. Kelli Ward, and Mole Medical Services, P.C. Respondents include Rep. Bennie G. Thompson and related entities, including the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and T-Mobile USA, Inc.\"},{\"question\":\"What procedural event led to the emergency request for a stay?\",\"answer\":\"Applicants sought an injunction pending appeal in the appellate court, which was denied by a split-panel decision dated October 22, 2022, with a ten-page dissent by Judge Ikuta.\"},{\"question\":\"What main arguments support granting the stay?\",\"answer\":\"The application argues that there is a reasonable probability of at least four justices considering the issue for certiorari, a fair prospect of reversal or a mandamus petition being granted, irreparable harm absent a stay, and that the balance of equities and relative harms favors a stay.\"}]","EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY - Emergency Application | PDF",1789782329,33]