The Supreme Court doesn’t often overrule one of its own decisions, but that’s what it did on Thursday in J.O. v. Superior Court. Although Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 has long allowed a party to disqualify a trial judge by simply claiming the judge is “prejudiced” without having to prove the prejudice, the court held repeated — or “blanket” — challenges to a judge, when shown prima facie to have been made in bad faith, can be subject to an “inquir[y] into the legitimacy of the party’s assertions of prejudice.” It overruled and found “no longer tenable” Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 to the extent that decision had permitted blanket no-questions-asked judicial disqualifications. The court expressly vindicates Justice Tobriner’s Solberg dissent.
The J.O. case arose after a county counsel filed 325 section 170.6 challenges to a judge hearing mental health and conservatorship matters, which led to the judge’s reassignment to preside over other types of cases. But the rule adopted by the court applies not just to executive branch parties. It’s a separation-of-powers issue and the offending “power” is the Legislature providing permission for unrestricted blanket disqualifications. Thus, the court says, “a private practitioner or law firm could also employ section 170.6 to unconstitutionally interfere with judicial operations.”
The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Groban begins with a quote from the Federalist Papers about the need for each branch of government to have “ ‘the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.’ ” It concludes that “blanket abuses of section 170.6 pose a clear and unacceptable risk of interfering with court operations,” explaining that, because of “the adoption of many sweeping new laws, as well as the rise of numerous specialty courts and specialty proceedings, requiring the assignment of dedicated judges to handle these specialized calendars,” blanket challenges “can ‘ “substantially impair” ’ [citation] the effective administration of justice within today’s court system.” “The judiciary should no longer be helpless to remedy the problem of blanket abuses,” the opinion says.
J.O. is unusual not only because the court overruled a decision, but also because the court straight granted the case without a Court of Appeal opinion. (See also Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts (here), Attorney General v. Bianco (here), and Cervantes v. Bianco (here).) The Third District Court of Appeal had summarily denied the writ petition in the case and the Supreme Court returns the matter to the appellate court “to consider whether any further proceedings are necessary in light of our opinion.”
