Sam Bankman-Fried filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, asking the justices to review the seven-count fraud conviction and $11 billion forfeiture that followed the collapse of FTX, according to CNN. The filing, reportedly submitted by Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher, asks for a new trial.

The petition’s central claim is evidentiary. It argues the trial court allowed prosecutors to suggest customers suffered large losses while blocking the defense from showing that FTX and Alameda Research held enough assets to repay them.

This story is an excerpt from the Unchained Daily newsletter.

“Where the government pursues a theory of fraud under which it doesn’t matter whether any victims lost money, introducing evidence suggesting that people actually lost money is distracting and prejudicial,” Fisher was quoted as saying by CNN. “All the more so where the truth is the victims did not lose money, and the defendant is unable to make that clear.”

Bankman-Fried separately argues the forfeiture violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

Whether Bankman-Fried’s most recent legal gambit can get off the ground is unclear. The court accepts only about 1% of the thousands of petitions it receives each term.

A three-judge Second Circuit panel rejected the same arguments on June 12, writing that the government’s trial evidence was robust and upholding Judge Lewis Kaplan‘s decision to exclude evidence that FTX might eventually have repaid customers. The panel relied on the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Kousisis v. United States, which held that conduct can be wire fraud without intent to cause net economic harm.

Beyond the courts, Bankman-Fried is trying to secure a pardon, formally asking President Donald Trump for one in June, even though Trump has said previously that he would not consider one. The Senate unanimously approved a resolution in July, led by Sens. Cynthia Lummis and Ruben Gallego, opposing clemency for Bankman-Fried.

Related Listen: Why the Kalshi-Nevada Ruling Could Land at the Supreme Court