The Supreme Court almost always files its opinions on Mondays and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. sharp. Also, the court files its opinions within 90 days after submission of the case (see here and here), which usually occurs as soon as oral argument concludes, but occasionally not until after completion of post-argument supplemental briefing.
The court is not issuing any opinions today. But there are still two undecided cases from the late-May calendar and three undecided cases from the June calendar. Within the 90-day period, there are two more regular filing days for the late-May cases (this Thursday and a week from today) and a third filing day for the June cases (August 31). (August 31 is also Justice Kathryn Werdegar’s last day on the bench.) So, unless the court calls for new supplemental briefing, expect opinions in these cases within the next 10 days:
California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland: Is a proposed initiative measure that would impose a tax subject to the requirement of California Constitution, article XIII C, section 2 that taxes “imposed by local government” be placed on the ballot at a general election?
Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1: For the purpose of the distinction between felony and misdemeanor forgery, is the value of an uncashed forged check the face value (or stated value) of the check or only the intrinsic value of the paper it is printed on?
The big one — Briggs v. Brown: This case presents issues regarding the validity of the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016 (Prop. 66, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016)). The court ordered supplemental briefing in this matter, but it did not change the submission date.
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California v. Superior Court: Does information collected by police using “automated license plate readers” – high-speed cameras that automatically scan and record the license plate numbers and time, date and location of every passing vehicle without suspicion of criminal activity – constitute law enforcement “records of . . . investigations” that are permanently exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act in accordance with Government Code section 6254, subdivision (f)?
Before argument, the court ordered supplemental briefing in this one, asking whether the catchall exemption of Government Code section 6255, subdivision (a) applies to any or all of the automatic license plate reader (ALPR) data collected by real parties during the one-week period in August, 2012, that is the subject of this court’s review under the California Public Records Act. (Gov. Code, § 6250, et seq.)
People v. Daniels: This is an automatic direct appeal from a February 2001 judgment of death.
