Before April, the Supreme Court’s oral argument calendars for the 2024-2025 term had only two, three, or four cases. Then April saw six cases and the early-May calendar will have eight. And today the court announced it will hear another eight cases on the late-May calendar. (May is the only month with two argument calendars.)
As we wrote when the early-May arguments were scheduled, it looks like the court might be doing this term what it did in the last — saving most of the oral arguments for the end. (For the end of the 2023-2024 term, see here, here, and here.) That’s a change from a policy instituted for the 2016-2017 term, when the court decided to have its calendars more evenly balanced throughout the term instead of backloading cases.
On Wednesday and Thursday, May 21 and 22, in San Francisco, the court will hear these cases (with the issue or issues presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself):
Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare: In a lawsuit against a skilled nursing facility arising from the facility’s alleged failure to protect a decedent from falls and infection, can the facility rely on an arbitration agreement signed only by the decedent to compel the decedent’s heirs to arbitrate a wrongful death claim? The court granted review in August 2024. More about the case here.
Hohenshelt v. Superior Court: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) preempt state statutes prescribing the procedures for paying arbitration fees and providing for forfeiture of the right to arbitrate if timely payment is not made by the party who drafted the arbitration agreement and who is required to pay such fees? The court granted review in June 2024. More about the case here.
Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles: this case is expected to resolve an unusual conflict — between one of the court’s own opinions and a later Ninth Circuit decision. When the court granted review in August 2022, it limited the issues to, as revised in September 2022: (1) Does Penal Code section 148.6, subdivision (a), particularly subdivision (a)(2), constitute improper viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment? (2) Does Penal Code section 148.6, subdivision (a), particularly subdivision (a)(2), impose an impermissible burden on the ability to file, or on the City to accept, police misconduct complaints? (3) Is it error to compel the City to comply with a statute that has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit? This is on our list of the oldest non-capital cases on the court’s docket. More about the case here.
Gutierrez v. Tostado: Does the one-year statute of limitations in the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA; Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5) apply to a personal injury claim alleging that the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by a negligently driven ambulance? The court invited the California Insurance Commissioner to file an amicus curiae brief, and he accepted the invitation. Review was granted in March 2024. More about the case here.
People v. Cannon: What level of scrutiny applies in determining whether the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) violates equal protection because it does not require an advisement or personal waiver of a jury trial as afforded in other civil commitment statutes? The court granted review in February 2023. More about the case here.
People v. Chhuon and Pan: This is an automatic direct appeal from March 2002 judgments of death. The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. The court affirmed (another?) death penalty sentence against Chhuon in February 2021. (People v. Chhoun (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1.) [Update: Counsel was appointed in December 2007 and January 2008. Initial briefing was completed in November 2016. There were a bunch of supplemental briefs, the last of which was filed just five days ago.]
People v. Cardenas: This is an automatic direct appeal from a March 2007 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. [Update: Counsel was appointed in January 2011. Initial briefing was completed in September 2019. In September 2022, the court directed supplemental briefing on “the significance, if any, of Assembly Bill No. 333 (Stats. 2021, ch. 699, § 3), People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818 [see here], People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285 [see here], and People v. Tran (Aug. 29, 2022, S165998) __ Cal.5th__ [see here], to the issues presented in this case.” (Links added.)]
People v. Alvarez: This is an automatic direct appeal from a June 2000 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. [Update: Counsel was appointed in December 2004. Initial briefing was completed in September 2014. Supplemental briefing was completed in May 2024.]
