Short answer. No. Review by the Supreme Court under Rule 45 is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons. Even a petition filed perfectly on time can simply be declined; you must give the Court a reason to take the case.
What the law says
A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor.
Rule 45, Section 6 — Review discretionary. Read the full provision →
What the law says
When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court
Rule 45, Section 6 — Review discretionary. Read the full provision →
Review is a privilege the Court grants
The rule is unambiguous: a review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. This is a structural fact about the Supreme Court's place in the system. Litigants are generally entitled to one appeal; by the time a case reaches the Supreme Court it has usually been decided twice, and the Court's function shifts from correcting individual outcomes to settling what the law is. It therefore chooses its cases — and most petitions are declined without the Court ever ruling on their merits.
The reasons the Court looks for
The rule sketches the kind of reasons that persuade, while stressing they are neither controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion. The first family: the court below has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court. The second: the lower court has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings — or sanctioned such a departure — as to call for the Court's power of supervision. Both look beyond your case to the legal system's need for an answer.
What this means for how a petition is written
The practical lesson is that a Rule 45 petition arguing only that the decision below was wrong is answering the wrong question. Thousands of losing parties believe that sincerely every year. What the petition must show is why this error matters beyond the parties: a novel question the Court has never settled, a ruling that collides with the law or with the Court's own decisions, or proceedings that went so far off course that supervision is called for. Framing the case in those terms is not packaging — it is the actual test the rule sets.
Weigh this before you spend the money
Before committing to a petition, have counsel give you a candid assessment against the rule's own criteria: does the case genuinely present a question of substance the Court has not determined, or a conflict with existing law? If the honest answer is that the courts below weighed the evidence against you, the odds are poor, because reweighing evidence is precisely what discretionary review does not exist to do. A realistic evaluation at this stage — including of what a denial costs in time and fees — is worth more than a beautifully drafted petition built on the wrong kind of grievance.