The Supreme Court on Wednesday took the rare action of vacating submission of two already argued cases and ordering supplemental briefing. Both cases have received much publicity. They involve First Amendment speech issues and the court now wants to know the parties’ (and amicus) views on, “What impact, if any, does the United States Supreme Court decision in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (June 27, 2025, No. 23-1122) 606 U.S. — [2025 WL 1773625], have on the issues presented in this case?” (Link added.)
Vacating submission in the cases — Taking Offense v. State of California and Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles — means the 90-day clock for issuing opinions will be reset. The court expects the cases will be resubmitted on August 13, which would have opinions filing as late as November 10.
Taking Offense was argued on the early-May calendar. (Argument video here.) As summarized by court staff (see here), the issue is, “Did the Court of Appeal err in declaring the provision of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights (Health & Saf. Code, § 1439.51) that criminalizes the willful and repeated failure to use a resident’s chosen name and pronouns unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment?” Later, the court indicated it might avoid answering that question, asking for supplemental briefing on whether the case should have been dismissed on lack-of-standing grounds, but this week’s briefing order indicates the court will decide the substantive merits.
More about the Taking Offense case here, here, here, and here.
The Police Protective League case was argued on the late-May calendar. (Argument video here.) 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?” Section 148.6 requires written complaints of police misconduct to be accompanied by signed acknowledgements that filing a knowingly false complaint can lead to a misdemeanor prosecution.
More about the Police Protective League case here and here.
In Free Speech Coalition, the U.S. Supreme Court, employing an intermediate-scrutiny standard of review, upheld a state law that attempts to prevent the distribution of sexually explicit content to minors by requiring certain commercial websites that publish such content to verify the ages of their visitors.
The beginning of this post says this delay in issuing opinions in argued cases is rare. Well, not exactly. It was rare until the last few months.
Because of post-argument briefing, the opinions in the death penalty appeals in People v. Bankston (argued in early-May), People v. Chhuon and Pan (argued in late-May), and People v. Barrera (argued in June) might not file until December 1 (see here), and the People v. Cardenas death penalty appeal (argued in late-May) and People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (argued in June) could be decided as late as September 15 and October 9, respectively.
This the first time I can remember any opinions being filed beyond the August 31 end of the term in which the cases were argued. (That’s not counting opinions filed before 1989, when the court began strictly applying the 90-day rule. (See Bussel, Opinions First—Argument Afterwards, 61 UCLA Law Review 1194, 1204 (2014); Justice Goodwin Liu, How the California Supreme Court Actually Works: A Reply to Professor Bussel, 61 UCLA L. Rev. 1246 (2014).)) It must have happened; I just don’t recall one off hand. But seven opinions, all in one term? That must be a post-1988 record.
