The Supreme Court heads back to the courtroom next month for oral arguments after its typical argument-less July and August. Its September calendar has five cases. The case selection might have been influenced by the court’s long-standing vacancy and also by Proposition 66, the initiative designed to speed up executions in California.
Five cases is on the light side and could be a function of the court not wanting to schedule argument in any case where the six permanent justices are tentatively split 3-3. In such a case, a temporarily assigned justice could be casting the deciding vote, which is an institutional problem. (Today is Day 519 since Justice Kathryn Werdegar announced her retirement. This will be the 12th (!) straight calendar with pro tem justices and will bring to 91 (!) the number of cases with randomly selected pro tems filling Justice Werdegar’s seat. None of the September pro tems have been named yet.) On a possibly related note, the September calendar does not include the pension case that Governor Brown last month asked the court to expedite.
Three of the five September cases are automatic direct death penalty appeals. Although the court said Proposition 66 could not force the court to rush its decisions in those appeals, it nonetheless views the initiative “as an exhortation to the parties and the courts to handle cases as expeditiously as is consistent with the fair and principled administration of justice.” The September calendar could be a conscious continuation of a trend to hear more death penalty appeals.
On September 5, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or stated by the court itself):
County of San Diego v. Commission on State Mandates: Did The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act (the voter initiative otherwise known as “Jessica’s Law” or Proposition 83), which amended and reenacted provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act, a statutory scheme that the Commission on State Mandates had found to include reimbursable state mandates, constitute a “change in the law” sufficient to support the Commission’s decision that some of those mandates were no longer reimbursable by the State of California? The court granted review in March 2017.
People v. Rodas: Did the trial court violate defendant’s right to due process by failing to suspend proceedings after his attorney declared a doubt as to his competence? The court granted review in December 2016.
People v. Miracle: This is an automatic direct appeal from a January 2006 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
People v. Buenrostro: This is an automatic direct appeal from an October 1998 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
People v. Gomez: This is an automatic direct appeal from a March 2000 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
[Update: Pro tems announced for September calendar. One is the answer to a Supreme Court trivia question.]
