The Supreme Court’s opinion today in Steen v. Appellate Division is notable for addressing an interesting separation of powers issue and for justifying (in footnote 1) the rare active participation by a lower court in a reviewing court’s proceedings. But the opinion is also significant because the pro tem sitting on the case — First District, Division Three, Court of Appeal Justice Peter Siggins — didn’t agree with it. Justice Siggins instead signed a (technically) concurring opinion by Justice Liu, an opinion that takes issue with the majority’s separation of powers reasoning.
By disagreeing with the opinion of the Supreme Court on which he is sitting by assignment, Justice Siggins is not alone. As mentioned, a dissenting pro tem has become somewhat common in cases heard since Justice Kennard’s retirement left a vacancy on the court. By our count, this is the fourth time that’s happened in 19 post-Kennard opinions.
