A Florida college professor who pleaded guilty to a charge of providing services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Sami Al-Arian, is asking the Supreme Court to overturn his 57-month prison sentence.

In a petition filed earlier this month, a lawyer for Al-Arian argued that the judge improperly punished the former University of South Florida professor for conduct that a jury acquitted him of during a six-month trial in 2005.

“The record of the … sentencing hearing unambiguously demonstrates that the sentencing court did hold ‘acquitted conduct’ against the defendant, to justify extending his incarceration for nearly a year,” Al-Arian’s attorney, C. Peter Erlinder, wrote. “It is difficult to imagine a clearer case for the need for protection against judicial hubris.”

Al-Arian was acquitted on eight charges, including conspiracy to murder and maim. The jury failed to reach a verdict on nine other counts, including a wide-ranging racketeering conspiracy count.

The former professor is currently on a hunger strike after being held in contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating Islamic charities in Virginia. He contends that his plea deal prevents the government from requiring his testimony.

Mr. Erlinder complained that, at sentencing, Judge James Moody Jr. called Al-Arian a liar, blamed him for statements allegedly made by a codefendant, and said Al-Arian was guilty of crimes of violence. The defense attorney claimed the judge acted improperly because the jury acquitted Al-Arian on those points.

A law professor who specializes in sentencing issues said the Supreme Court has long upheld the use of so-called acquitted conduct in setting a punishment, but a series of recent sentencing-related decisions from the justices have undermined some of the rationale for the earlier rulings.

“I believe strongly that the court should and probably will before the end of the decade return to the issue of acquitted conduct,” Douglas Berman of Ohio State University said.

However, the professor said Al-Arian’s situation doesn’t present the question in a straightforward way. “I think this is a particularly bad vehicle for the court to take up these issues,” Mr. Berman said.

For instance, the jury’s acquittal of Al-Arian on some charges and lack of verdict on others could spawn disputes about whether the judge actually rejected the jury’s findings. Al-Arian’s defense also quotes a magistrate who promised Al-Arian his acquitted conduct would not be held against him. Mr. Berman said such promises are rare and could lead the justices to view the case as an anomaly not worthy of their consideration.

“If I were a betting man, I’d have all my chips on cert. denied, but it’s not because these aren’t very good issues,” Mr. Berman said.

Prosecutors in Tampa did not return a call seeking comment on Al-Arian’s filing. The Justice Department elected not to submit a response at this juncture. Al-Arian’s petition is among those set for consideration when the justices meet privately on April 13.