California’s highest court, the Supreme Court, issues judgments that are binding on all other state courts. The court has original jurisdiction in some areas, such as habeas corpus proceedings. It reviews all cases from lower state courts that involve a death sentence, and, at its own discretion, can review decisions of the state Court of Appeal. It also reviews all recommendations from the Commission on Judicial Performance and all State Bar decisions concerning the discipline of judges and attorneys for misconduct. One chief justice and six associate justices are appointed by the governor and approved by the Commission on Judicial Appointments for 12-year terms, which are approved by voters in general elections. 

California’s first constitution, drafted in 1849, called for a state Supreme Court with one chief justice and two associate justices, to be elected by the Legislature. Subsequent justices would be elected for six-year terms. The first Supreme Court convened in rented rooms at a former San Francisco hotel in March 1850, six months before California joined the United States. Most decisions in those early days were not published.

In 1862, the court was expanded to five justices with terms of 10 years, and the type of cases they would handle was also increased. A state constitutional convention in 1878-1879 changed the judiciary again. Six associate justices and the chief justice would serve 12-year terms, and opinions were now required in writing. The court bounced between Sacramento—the state capital—and San Francisco, then added Los Angeles to its rounds.

The Supreme Court soon had a backlog of cases with an average wait of two years to have a case decided. Through the 1880s, commissioners were appointed to help, but in 1904 three Courts of Appeal were created, leaving the Supreme Court free to handle “great and important” cases. At that point, the Supreme Court was also given the authority to transfer appellate cases to itself or to another Court of Appeal.

In 1934, the current system of governor-appointed justices who then served but stood for election at the next general election was adopted.

Although it heard cases in other cities, San Francisco emerged as the permanent home of the Supreme Court. From 1923 to 1989, the court met in the Earl Warren Building on McAllister Street. The 1989 Loma Prieto earthquake caused enough damage to force the court to relocate for 10 years, but since 1999 it’s been back in the same location.

Internal Operating Practices and Procedures of the California Supreme Court (pdf)

History of the California Courts (The California Supreme Court Historical Society)

California’s court system is the largest in the world, and the state Supreme Court holds the highest authority in the system, issuing more than 100 opinions each year on legal questions.  The Supreme Court must review all cases that resulted in a death penalty.

According to the state constitution, cases decided by the state’s Courts of Appeal may be reviewed at the Supreme Court’s discretion, either in whole or to decide an important legal question and maintain uniformity to the law. Cases from the appellate courts are petitioned for review, and the justices decide to accept or decline the case at their weekly conferences. Less than 5% are accepted. Case information can be found online, and questions about the petition process are answered at the Practices & Procedures page.

All Supreme Court opinions are available at the court’s website and are published in print. The chief justice assigns cases for preparation of opinions, and guidelines ensure that much discussion and consensus take place. Usually the release of decisions occurs on Mondays and Thursdays at 10 a.m. The daily proceedings of the court, including calendars, notices, filings, weekly summaries, and minutes, are updated throughout the day. Docket information on every case before the court is updated hourly.

The Supreme Court may also review decisions of the Commission on Judicial Performance and the State Bar about the removal or suspension of judges and attorneys for misconduct, as well as any decisions made by the state’s Public Utilities Commission.

The court consists of one chief justice and six associate justices, all appointed for 12-year terms by the governor after review by the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation. Appointees are then confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. When a new justice is appointed to fill an unexpired term—as in the case of the current chief justice, whose predecessor retired—the new justice serves, but must be confirmed by the voters at the next gubernatorial election. At the end of their 12-year terms, justices may also stand for election and continue to serve.

The Supreme Court is responsible for the state’s Code of Judicial Ethics, and maintains two committees dedicated to that, the Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics, and the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions.  All eight members of the advisory committee are also members of the latter committee, which has other appointed members.

The administration and management of the court is handled by a clerk appointed by the justices. The clerk’s office handles the calendar, recruits counsel, maintains public records and coordinates status reports of matters before the court. In addition to the clerk, the court has three central staffs comprised of career attorneys, assisted by law student externs: one for criminal, one for civil and one for capital matters. The central staffs provide support and assistance and prepare conference memoranda.

The Supreme Court sits in San Francisco, at the Earl Warren Building, but convenes at other locations in the state at least once a year to hear arguments. Court security is provided by the California Highway Patrol.

Internal Operating Practices and Procedures of the California Supreme Court (pdf)

The state combines the expenditures of its judicial branch into one budget entry with subcategories of Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, etc. Out of a judicial branch allocation of $2.79 billion (from which $1 billion in reimbursements is already deducted), the Supreme Court gets $46.5 million. All but $899,000 of this comes from the state’s general fund and the rest from the Appellate Court Trust Fund.

Salaries and benefits account for $25.1 million. The seven justices are all paid over $200,000 each. Operating expenses and equipment comprise only $5.6 million. The rest, $15.8 million, goes to pay court-appointed counsel.

Same-Sex Marriage

In 2000, 61% of California voters approved Proposition 22, limiting marriage to the traditional man-and-woman mix. But is this a question to be settled by voters?

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom thought not, and told his city officials to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples just before Valentine’s Day in 2004. Nearly 4,000 couples said “I do” during the next four weeks. The state Supreme Court intervened, stopping the city from granting any more licenses to same-sex applicants. A few months later, the court declared that the marriages performed for those couples were null and void, because “in the absence of a judicial determination that statues limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples are unconstitutional, San Francisco officials lacked authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”

The next year, the San Francisco Superior Court decided that current (2005) marriage statutes in the state contravened the state constitution by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The state Court of Appeal overturned that decision, and the case went to the state Supreme Court. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution protects a right to marry for all citizens—not just opposite-sex couples. To deprive some of that right was unconstitutional.

In response, an initiative called the California Marriage Protection Act gathered enough signatures to appear as Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. It passed with 52% of the vote. Prop. 8 amended California’s constitution by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

A court challenge ensued. Two same-sex couples, denied marriage licenses in two different California counties, brought a case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case, originally Perry v Schwarzenegger and now Perry v Brown, put same-sex marriage before a U.S., not a state, court. That court found that the changes wrought by Prop. 8 were unconstitutional, in that they violated the Due Process and Equal Protection sections of the U.S. Constitution.

That decision was appealed, and a higher court—the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals—placed a stay on the injunction against Prop. 8 while the case was decided. Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris both declined to argue for Prop. 8 before the court.  The case was briefly rerouted to the state Supreme Court in 2011, when the Circuit Court asked the state court to decide whether Prop. 8’s supporters had the standing, under California’s constitution and laws, to argue for the measure before the U.S. court. In effect, the supporters of the proposition would be representing the state because state officials declined.

The state Supreme Court decided unanimously that supporters of Prop 8 could argue the case. The U. S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet issued its decision.

California Supreme Court Rules in Marriage Cases (Judicial Council of California) (pdf)

The Prop 8 Trial: Where Things Stand (by Jacob Combs, Prop 8 Trial Tracker)

Warrantless Cell Phone Searches

In a case that has divided courts across the country, the California Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that police can search a person’s cell phone without a warrant after an arrest.  The January 2011 decision said that arrestees lose their privacy rights for items in their possession.

The case involved a drug suspect, Gregory Diaz, whose phone was searched by a sheriff’s deputy after being arrested. When confronted with text messages from his phone, Diaz admitted his involvement in a drug deal. He appealed his conviction after pleading guilty and getting probation.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Ming Chin, said cited U.S. Supreme Court decisions in identifying the cell phone as personal property, like a pack of cigarettes,  “immediately associated” with the suspect and subject to an immediate warrantless search.

Justice Kathryn Werdegar disagreed. She argued that since the cell phone was already in police custody, there was no immediate need to search without a warrant and that likening cell phones to cigarette packs discounts the importance of what is actually searched. The court’s decision gave “police carte blanche, with no showing of exigency, to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee's person,” Werdegar wrote in dissent.

People v. Diaz

Ruling Lets California Police Search Your Phone Without a Warrant (by Amy Gahran, CNN)

Court OKs Searches of Cell Phones Without Warrant (by Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle)

California Supreme Court: Police Can Search Cell Phone without a Warrant (by John Richards, LegalMatch)

Personal Injury Cases

The state Supreme Court surprised many in August 2011 when it decided a case about collecting damages for personal injury. In Howell v Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Howell sued a company for medical bills to treat the injuries she suffered in a car accident. An employee of Hamilton Meats & Provisions drove the other vehicle and was at fault. Howell wanted to collect the amount billed by the hospital, rather than the lower amount that was actually paid out to the hospital by her insurance. Initially Howell won, but the other party appealed and won the appeal. The Supreme Court found that defendants with private health insurance can only recover their actual expenses—not the amount billed by hospitals and doctors, but the amount paid.

 “The California Supreme Court reduced the recovery awarded to a victim of a company’s wrongdoing and in that ruling delivered a serious blow to victims’ rights,” began an AARP article about the decision. They worried that “a wrongdoer should not be rewarded with a smaller damage award just because a victim has insurance. This principle serves the dual purpose of compensating the injured and deterring future bad acts.”

“The court sided with big business and insurance companies,” says the Kidneigh and Kaufman/Personal Injury Attorneys blog. Their post explains that someone who doesn’t have health insurance now can recover much more money that someone with insurance. “In a way, it punished those people who carry health insurance.”

Samuel R. W. Price writes on his company’s legal blog that this case “marks a victory for California businesses, which no longer face the prospect of liability for non-existent medical expenses arising out of personal injury cases—expenses that are often five to ten times higher than those actually paid. Ultimately, this should also lower liability insurance premiums and discourage extensive litigation of low-value cases.”

“The California Supreme Court made the right decision,” wrote Armand Feliciano, vice president of the Association of California Insurance Companies. “To compensate the plaintiff billed charges or something that was never incurred is a windfall and could have the unintended consequence of increasing premiums.”

Insurers Win, Lawyers Lose in Big State Supreme Court Ruling (by Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee)

California’s Top Court Diminishes Wrongdoer Liability  (by Kelly Bagby, Bruce Vignery and Barbara Jones, AARP Foundation Litigation)

Personal Injury Law (Kidneigh & Kaufman attorneys at law)

California Supreme Court Halts Recovery of Phantom Medical Costs  (by Samuel R.W. Price, Poole Shaffery attorneys at law)

CA Supreme Court Correctly Concluded Damages Should be Based on Actual Paid Amounts Not Phantom Billed Charges (Association of California Insurance Companies) (pdf)

The Death Penalty

California prisons have 718 people sitting on death row, waiting for the state’s next move in its years long self-imposed limbo.

The State Supreme Court reviews all death penalty decisions and, although they continue to be handed down by lower courts, only 13 prisoners have been executed in California since 1992 and no one since Clarence Ray Allen in 2006.

An ititiative to repeal the death penalty is expected to be on the November 2012 ballot. Meanwhile, the debate over how to proceed continues.

The California Supreme Court called state law on the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment and declared it unconstitutional in 1972. The California Legislature rewrote the law in 1977 and voters passed a new version the next year, but it was 14 years before the next state execution. One of the reasons for the dearth of executions was the swearing in of Rose Bird as chief justice in March 1977. She never voted to uphold a death sentence, voting 61 times to vacate such decisions. Her views on capital punishment were instrumental in her ouster from office in 1986.

A federal judge enacted a de facto moratorium on California executions in 2006 when he ruled that its lethal injection method for killing prisoners was flawed. The judge ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to revamp the process and the Schwarzenegger administration attempted to draft new rules. But court challenges continued to stymie their implementation.

In December 2011, Marin County Superior Court Judge Faye D’Opal ruled that the new lethal injection process was still flawed.

Later that month, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye told the Los Angeles Times that she didn’t think the death penalty “is working” and that in order to work it requires “structural change, and we don't have the money to create the kind of change that is needed.” The chief justice is a former prosecutor who has written a ruling in the past affirming a death sentence and voted to uphold others in high court cases.

In her interview, Cantil-Sakauye mentioned cost as a factor in death penalty cases. “I don't know if the question is whether you believe in it anymore. I think the greater question is its effectiveness and given the choices we face in California, should we have a merit-based discussion on its effectiveness and costs?”

A recent study conducted by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Paula M. Mitchell put the cost to California taxpayers of pursuing death penalty inititiatives since 1978 at more than $4 billion. Pre-trial and trial costs were pegged at $1.9 billion and incarceration at $1 billion. The appeals process was calculated to be another $1.7 billion.  

California Chief Justice Urges Reevaluating Death Penalty (by Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times)

Marin Judge Rejects Lethal Injection Procedures (by Paul Elias, Associated Press)

Executions at San Quentin Remain in Limbo after Marin Judge's Order (by Howard Mintz, Bay Area News Group)

The Rise and Fall of Rose Bird (by Patrick K. Brown, California State University, Fullerton)

The History of California's Death Penalty (Death Penalty Focus)

Executing the Will of the Voters? (by Judge Arthur L. Alarcon & Paula M. Mitchell, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review) (pdf)

California’s Supreme Court Allows Law that Abolishes Redevelopment Agencies

Since 1945, California counties and cities have been able to use part of their property tax revenues to help develop blighted areas by creating redevelopment agencies that partner with developers. By 2011, about $5 billion annually went to 400 such agencies. Sports stadiums, gentrified downtown areas, parks, low-income housing and transit stations are some of the projects funded and built through these partnerships.

Governor Jerry Brown suggested eliminating redevelopment agencies and using that $5 billion for schools and other state needs. In 2011, California’s Legislature passed AB-1X 26, mandating the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, and AB-1X 27, a compromise that asked for more money from the redevelopment agencies in exchange for their continued existence. Several agencies went to court, arguing that both new laws were unconstitutional, and lost. The state Supreme Court decided that the Legislature had the right to create and dissolve such agencies when it saw fit, and it struck down the second law.

CRA v. Matosantos  (Supreme Court website) (pdf)

California High Court Puts Redevelopment Agencies out of Business (by Maura Dolan, Jessica Garrison and Anthony York, Los Angeles Times)

Bad Decision and a Blow to Cities

“This ruling is a tremendous blow to local job creation and economic advancement,” said Julio Fuentes, the President of the California Redevelopment Association Board. His agency is working with legislators to restore redevelopment funding.  The League of California Cities says on its site that many lawmakers “made it clear that the legislative vote was intended only to extract revenues from redevelopment agencies, not abolish them altogether.”

In a news story about the effects of the decision, the Los Angeles Times noted, “These days, most California cities have a redevelopment agency,” and rounded up opinions from cities throughout the state which will have to do without such agencies in the future:

·    “You can’t have a state with no mechanism for building affordable housing,” Oakland Mayor Jean Quan is quoted as saying. “Redevelopment is the main way we fund affordable housing in this state.”

·    Pointing out that redevelopment agencies will be forced to sell choice land and properties immediately and at depressed prices, Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster said, “It would be a fire sale. . . . And everyone would know you have to sell.”

The Times listed a few abuses of redevelopment funds, but pointed out that many worthwhile projects were planned for years and must now be scrapped. These include a library in Santa Clara, a seismic upgrade to Santa Monica’s Civic Auditorium, a senior housing development in Sylmar, a $1 million renovation to a historic theater in an old section of port city San Pedro, and a new football stadium in San Diego.

“Local officials insist that, despite its flaws, redevelopment provides the only significant tool to create jobs, improve run-down neighborhoods and create homes for the poor.”

Pleas for Legislative Action to Revive Redevelopment  (League of California Cities)

California Cities Seek Restoration of Some Redevelopment Spending  (by Anthony York, David Zahniser and Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times)

California Supreme Court Allows Redevelopment Money Grab (by Howard Mintz, San Jose Mercury News)

Mourning Is the First Reaction—Then a Vow to Resurrect (by Kathy Fairbanks, The Front Page)

Yes, the Supreme Court Got It Right

Responding directly to the Los Angeles Times story, Professor Gideon Kanner in his Gideon’s Trumpet blog writes, “The screaming has begun and the city folks who over the years grew accustomed to spending mucho dinero on all sorts of stupid or frivolous stuff under the banner of redevelopment . . . are aghast at having to pay for their own municipal goodies.”

He continues, “And to show you how perverted are the values of the redeveloper folks, get this. Among the laments over the demise of redevelopment in California, we find another one from San Diego, where it is said that [quoting the Times] “the court decision ends any thought of using redevelopment funds to build a downtown football stadium for the San Diego Chargers to replace aging Qualcomm Stadium.”

Kanner invites readers to think about that. “Professional football is a business in which the owners’ wealth is measured in the billions . . . yet these are the people who plead for government subsidies at the expense of schools, police and fire protection, and all other essential municipal services. Sheesh!”

Calling the decision “the year’s most important land use decision,” Richard Frank of the Legal Planet blog speculated, “Local government mavens and defenders of redevelopment policy will no doubt bemoan the looming elimination of California redevelopment agencies. I’m slightly more sanguine about the future.” He calls the state’s land use policies and politics “remarkably resilient” and says, “My hunch is that developers, planners, local government officials and other stakeholders will be creative enough to find other strategies to promote, finance and build worthwhile projects to restore and revitalize California’s urban neighborhoods.”

Frank accuses redevelopment agencies of adopting “an Alfred E. Neuman-like, ‘what-me-worry?’ response” to recent events in and out of the state, of maintaining an attitude that they “could basically do no wrong,” and of having “stubbornly refused to accept responsibility to help address California’s chronic budget deficits, insisting on a business-as-usual political strategy that would leave them fiscally unscathed.”

Frank concludes, “It seems indisputable that the redevelopment community’s actions over the past six years have set a new standard for political tone-deafness and ineptitude.”

Those Screams You Hear from [Former] California Redevelopment Agencies Is the Sound of Justice  (Gideon’s Trumpet)

California Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Local Redevelopment Agencies  (by Richard Frank, Legal Planet)

California Supreme Court Strikes Back Against Redevelopment Thugs (Updated With Sputtering, Fulminating and Slow Burns) (by Tim Cavanaugh, Reason)

Supreme Court Rebukes Crony Capitalism (by Steve Greenhut, CalWatchdog)

California’s Redevelopment Nightmare Coming To An End (Castle Coalition)

Ronald M. George, (1996-2010) George is remembered as the swing vote in a court split 4-3 over Proposition 22, an initiative that banned same-sex marriage. The court ruled against the proposition, legalizing same-sex marriage by finding that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and invites the scrutiny of the Equal Protection Clause of the state’s constitution.

Malcolm Lucas, (1987-1996)

Rose Bird, (1977-1987) Heavily criticized by conservatives for her views, and by pundits for her independence, Bird was adamantly against capital punishment, reversing all 61 death penalty cases that came before her. This probably cost her in the 1987 general election, when she became the only chief justice in California history to be removed from office by voters.

Donald R. Wright, (1970-1977)

Roger J. Traynor, (1964-1970) Traynor was considered a brilliant man, a gifted teacher and one of the nation’s top scholars in tax law. He spent 24 years as an associate justice before becoming chief justice, and many felt he elevated the court to the nation’s finest. His decisions included People v Cahan, a 1955 case disallowing illegally obtained evidence in trials; Perez v Sharp, a 1948 opinion striking down California’s laws against interracial marriage; Greenman v Yuba Power Products, and other cases from the early 1960s that imposed strict product liability on companies that sold defective products; and a 1966 decision throwing out Proposition 14—an initiative that sought to overturn the Rumford Fair Housing Law by allowing Californians to racially discriminate when selling their homes.

Phil S. Gibson, (1940-1964)

William H. Waste, (1926-1940)

Louis Westcott Myers, (1924-1926) After leaving the Supreme Court, Myers returned to the practice of law in Los Angeles, becoming the Myers in the famed firm O’Melveny & Myers.

Curtis D. Wilbur, (1923-1924) Resigned to become secretary of the U.S. Navy.

Lucien Shaw, (1921-1923)

Frank Angellotti, (1915-1921)

Matt Sullivan, (1914-1915)

William H. Beatty, (1889-1914)

Niles Searls, (1887-1889)

Robert F. Morrison, (1879-1887)

William T. Wallace, (1872-1879)

Royal T. Sprague, (1872) Sprague died within a month of taking office.

Augustus Rhodes, (1870-1872)

Lorenzo Sawyer, (1868-1870)

John Currey, (1866-1868)

Silas Sanderson, (1864-1866)

W. W. Cope, (1863-1864)

Stephen J. Field, (1859-1863) Field left California’s Supreme Court when he was appointed to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court by President Lincoln. He was the first Californian to do so.

David S. Terry, (1857-1859) Shortly after Terry was defeated for re-election in 1859 as chief justice he shot and killed and old friend, U.S. Senator David C. Broderick, in a duel. The duel resulted from heated comments over slavery; Terry was for slavery’s expansion into California. Terry was acquitted of murder charges but left the state to serve in the Confederate Army.

Thirty years later, Terry and his wife, Sarah, appeared in a Northern California U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before Stephen J. Field, who had succeeded Terry as chief justice in California before joining the federal bench and eventually becoming a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Another former California chief justice, Lorenzo Sawyer, also sat on this circuit court. The case involved a claim by Sarah that she was entitled to a divorce settlement from a previous “husband,” millionaire William Sharon, who denied they were ever married. Before the final decision was reached, Sarah Terry insulted and attacked Sawyer on a train, and her husband threatened Sawyer.

Back in the courtroom, the court decided against the Terrys. Sarah Terry screamed insults in the courtroom; David Terry struggled with a U.S. marshal, knocked the lawman’s tooth out and tried to draw a knife. Not surprisingly, when the dust settled Justice Field had Terry and his wife jailed for contempt.

Because of David Terry’s loud and repeated threats to kill him, Justice Field was assigned a bodyguard from the U.S. Marshals Service months later, when he returned to California to preside over the next Circuit Court. Sure enough, the Terrys stalked and assaulted Field at a restaurant. David Terry was shot to death by Field’s bodyguard. The bodyguard was arrested, and his case led to an 1890 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming the right of the president and attorney general to direct U.S. marshals to provide protective services to justices of the Supreme Court.

Hugh C. Murray, (1852-1857)

Henry A. Lyons, (1852)

Serranus Clinton Hastings, (1850-1852) Hastings had been a U.S. Representative and the chief justice of Iowa’s supreme court before coming to California. He was later California’s Attorney General, then founded the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.