There were no straight grants at the Supreme Court’s Wednesday conference, but the court did continue its wholesale disposition of grant-and-holds.
It was still a short-handed conference, with just six justices participating, because Governor Newsom has left unfilled an 11–month-long vacancy on the court.
More clemency recommendations
Supreme Court approves another LWOP commutation “rehearing,” along with two other clemencies.
Supplemental briefing order: water rates
The court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs in Dreher v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, in which review was granted in March and the issue was limited to: “Do the methods adopted by the City of Los Angeles to set water budgets and allocate water supply costs result in tiered water rates that violate the proportionality requirement of article XIII D, section 6, subdivision (b)(3) of the California Constitution?” (Link added.) More about the case here.
The supplemental briefing is to address: “What effect, if any, does Assembly Bill No. 2180 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) have on the resolution of the issue presented in this case?” The Governor signed AB 2180 five days ago.
The bill’s sponsor — the Association of California Water Agencies — told the Legislature that the Court of Appeal’s Dreher opinion that is on review “supports a framework that is not only consistent with Proposition 218 [which added article XIII D] but also aligns with longstanding industry practice.”
Responses to amicus briefing were filed two months ago.
Dissenting vote: Coastal Commission and oil pipeline repairs
Justice Groban recorded a dissenting vote from the denial of review in Sable Offshore Corp. v. California Coastal Commission. The Second District, Division Six, Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 published opinion, affirmed a preliminary injunction sought by the Commission to enforce a Commission cease and desist order concerning repairs to onshore crude oil pipelines years after the 2015 Refugio Beach oil spill. The order arose from a dispute between the Commission and Santa Barbara County whether coastal development permits were necessary.
The Division Six majority held the Commission’s order was statutorily authorized. The dissent claimed the Commission was overruling a County determination and had no jurisdiction to do so.
Dissenting vote: Perkins operation (maybe)
The court denied review in In re J.S., but Justice Liu recorded a vote to hear the case. The 69-page unpublished opinion by the Fourth District, Division Two, covered a number of different issues in, among other things, reversing juvenile court adjudicatory findings of murder. Because of the multiple issues and the unexplained dissenting vote, it’s not certain which issue or issues attracted Justice Liu’s attention. (There’s a fairly simple cure for that: When a message vote’s message is muddled.)
The vote might be related to the juvenile court’s admission of out-of-court statements of a co-perpetrator to an undercover law enforcement officer during what’s known as a Perkins operation. Division Two rejected arguments that the statements were testimonial hearsay and that they were improperly obtained during a custodial interrogation.
Perkins issues have been on Liu’s radar for some time (see, recently, here) and, indeed, are pending before the Supreme Court in People v. Allen (see here and here). The court sent its oral argument letter in Allen on Wednesday.
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were two criminal case grant-and-holds, one each waiting for a decision in People v. Eaton (see here) and in People v. Munoz (see here, here, and here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
Last week, the court disposed of 57 grant-and-holds. This week, “only” 53 were taken off the docket.
The court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss review in six cases that were originally held for EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 58 (see here) and then for the still-pending Lathrop v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (see here): Lockton Companies v. Superior Court (Giblin), Lockton Companies LLC — Pacific Series v. Superior Court (Barnes), Lockton Companies, LLC – Pacific Series v. Superior Court (McClave), Lockton Companies LLC — Pacific Series v. Superior Court (Racunas), Lockton Companies LLC — Pacific Series v. Superior Court (Roderick), and Lockton Investment Advisors v. Superior Court (Kaufman). (See here, here, here, here, and here.) One Lockton case — Lockton Companies LLC — Pacific Series v. Superior Court (Canales) — is apparently still a grant-and-hold. (See here.)
16 cases were sent back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729 (see here).
13 cases that were holding for People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57 (see here) were remanded for reconsideration in light of Espino, while the court dismissed review in 12 others. The Espino cases had originally been grant-and-holds for People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 (see here), but were converted to Espino grant-and-holds after the Rhodius decision and after Espino, which itself had been a Rhodius grant-and-hold, was un-held. (See here.)
Of four matters that were waiting for the People v. Esquivias (2026) 20 Cal.5th 734 (see here) decision, review was dismissed in three and one was returned for reconsideration in light of Esquivias.
The court dismissed review in one case that was on hold for People v. SanMiguel (2026) 20 Cal.5th 254 (see here) and sent another one back for reconsideration in light of SanMiguel.
