Patricia Guerrero has been a member of the Supreme Court since March 2022 and Chief Justice since January 2023, yet it wasn’t until Thursday in People v. Lynch (see here) that she issued a dissenting opinion. In fact, Lynch was the very first case in which Guerrero didn’t fully endorse a court opinion — besides no previous dissents, she has filed no concurring opinions and hasn’t even signed any other justice’s separate opinion, dissenting or concurring.
Chief Justice Guerrero seems to have been almost as agreeable in conference as well. The only times we think she expressed differences there were in 2022 when she dissented from the denial of review in Almond Alliance of California v. Fish and Game Commission, where the Court of Appeal had held that bumble bees were fish under the California Endangered Species Act (see here), and when she did not join five colleagues who voted to issue an order to show cause, returnable in the Court of Appeal, in In re Tilei, concerning a criminal defendant’s right to direct their defense against their counsel’s advice (see here).
There are caveats about conference actions, however. First, dissents from denials of review aren’t necessarily made public. (See here.) Second, it’s very rare for grants of review to not be unanimous because a justice who doesn’t vote for review is normally disqualified from writing the court’s opinion in the case. (See Internal Operating Practices and Procedures of the California Supreme Court, section VI.C.1. [Generally, for preparation of a calendar memo, which can be the precursor to the court’s opinion, “The case is assigned [by the Chief Justice] to one of the justices who voted for review.”]
The court in recent years has been known for its consensus rulings and the rarity of disagreements among the justices. (See here.) But the Chief Justice seems to have taken that collegiality to a new level.
