The U.S. Supreme Court started its summer recess last week. Given this blog’s bent, we went looking for nexuses between the Court’s decisions this term — since October 2020’s first Monday — and the California Supreme Court. Here’s what we found.
The high court’s only direct review of California Supreme Court opinions resulted in 11 certiorari petition denials — one in a civil case, one in a judicial discipline matter, and nine in death penalty appeals:
- Certiorari denied in People v. Miles (see: Another Justice Liu dissent on a Batson issue as Supreme Court affirms death sentence; also here).
- Defendant’s certiorari petition denied in People v. Peterson (see: Supreme Court reverses Scott Peterson death sentence, affirms the conviction).
- Certiorari denied in People v. Vargas (see: Supreme Court affirms death sentence despite violation of Vienna Convention on consular notification).
- Certiorari denied after multiple conference relistings in People v. Johnson (see: Further disagreement on Batson/Wheeler issues as the court affirms two death sentences).
- Certiorari denied in People v. Fayed (see: Supreme Court affirms death penalty despite misgivings about defense counsel’s ethics.)
- Certiorari denied in Laettner v. Commission on Judicial Performance (see: Supreme Court won’t stop removal of superior court judge).
- Certiorari denied in People v. Flores (see: Divided Supreme Court — splitting on Miranda issue — affirms death penalty for three gang-related murders).
- Certiorari denied in People v. Frederickson (see: Supreme Court affirms death penalty for self-represented defendant who unsuccessfully tried to plead guilty).
- Certiorari denied after conference relistings in People v. Rhoades (see: Further disagreement on Batson/Wheeler issues as the court affirms two death sentences).
- Certiorari denied in People v. Hoyt (see: Supreme Court affirms death penalty for defendant represented at trial by a two-year lawyer who had a potential conflict of interest and who resigned from the bar during the trial court proceedings).
- Certiorari denied in Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co., Ltd. (see: Supreme Court reinstates $414 million judgment, validating waiver of Hague Convention service requirement; also here).
(The list of cert denials doesn’t include those concerning California Supreme Court decisions without opinions, such as summary denials of habeas corpus or writ petitions.)
There are also some indirect connections.
One showed the two courts in sync. In Caniglia v. Strom (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1596, SCOTUS held that noncriminal “community caretaking functions” can justify the warrantless search of a vehicle, but not of a home. The California Supreme Court came to the same conclusion two years earlier in People v. Ovieda (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1034. (See: Supreme Court dumps “community caretaking” warrantless search rule.)
Two other cases — both decided just two weeks ago — reflected more negatively on the California court’s work.
Forty-five years ago, the California court, by a 4-3 vote, upheld as constitutional a regulation permitting qualified access to agricultural property by farm labor organizers. (Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392.) In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (June 23, 2021, No. 20-107) __ U.S. __, however, a 6-3 SCOTUS found the regulation appropriates a right to invade the property and therefore constitutes a per se physical taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that Justice William Clark’s dissent in the ALRB case “had it exactly right.”
In Lange v. California (June 23, 2021, No. 20-18) __ U.S. __, after the California Supreme Court denied review of a 2019 First District, Division Five, Court of Appeal unpublished opinion, SCOTUS granted cert and reversed, holding that pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not always justify a warrantless entry into a home.
Let us know if we missed any other connections.
