At around the mid-point of its 2023-2024 term, the Supreme Court is on a pace to issue an historically low 38 or 39 opinions for the period. (See here.) But Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero is hopeful output will increase over the second half so that the court will exceed current projections.
Guerrero, along with new Judicial Council Administrative Director Shelley Curran, spoke at her first meeting with the press since becoming California’s chief justice just over a year ago. The sit-down with the media was an annual event under her predecessor, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, a tradition Guerrero plans to continue. Six professional journalists and an At The Lectern blogger attended the meeting in the Chief Justice’s San Francisco chambers.
The Chief Justice said the issue of how many opinions the court files is always one of balancing quality and productivity. She assured the entire court is aware of the numbers problem and reported that the justices have set internal targets for issuing opinions.
Guerrero also said that necessary supplemental briefing has delayed some case dispositions and she also cited a reduction in case filings and a somewhat reduced number of grants of review as affecting opinion quantities. But she denied that the crafting of opinions to achieve consensus among the justices has an impact on the court’s productivity.
Besides the number of opinions, the meeting covered a wide range of topics. Responding to questions, the Chief Justice discussed how the U.S. Supreme Court’s low public standing is having an adverse effect on other courts, her view that a change in a court’s membership shouldn’t cause a change in precedent, the variety of issues the court is confronting in dealing with the California Racial Justice Act, the importance of civics education for students and of building a pipeline for qualified candidates for judicial office, the need for active court oversight of the State Bar, the filling of judicial vacancies, court employees’ ability to confidently report workplace misconduct, meeting with members of the Legislature — comprised of a decreasing number of attorneys — to explain the court’s workings, her satisfaction with her colleagues (it’s like working with your heroes, she said), and the positive impact of her Imperial Valley upbringing.
Guerrero did not discuss specific cases, with one exception — the court’s declining to answer a choice-of-laws question posed by the Ninth Circuit in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, a case to determine the ownership of a Camille Pissarro painting the Nazis forcibly took from a German Jewish family in 1939. She said it was unusual for the Supreme Court to not accept a case from the Ninth Circuit, but the court felt it was not necessary to settle the issue because existing California law was sufficient. But she declined to comment on a concurring opinion in the federal appellate court’s decision in the case 10 days ago; the court rejected the family’s claim to the painting, but the concurring judge wrote that the “result [was] at odds with [her] moral compass.”
Other media coverage of the Chief Justice’s meeting with the press:
Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle — “California chief justice ‘dismayed’ by loss of public faith in U.S. Supreme Court.”
Malcolm Maclachlan in the Daily Journal — “Chief Justice to legislators: ‘Tell us if it is retroactive or not.’ ” (See: Scolding the Legislature for lack of clarity, Supreme Court rules statute can retroactively reduce probation without negating plea deal.)
Cheryl Miller in The Recorder — “California Chief Justice Says Court’s Frequent Unanimity Doesn’t Squelch Voices.”
Joyce Cutler for Bloomberg Law — “California Courts Must Help Public Ensure Trust: Chief Justice.”
[January 25 update: Chief Justice Guerrero spoke about her meeting with the press during Friday’s Judicial Council meeting.]
Related:
“Why we’re not worried about SCOCA productivity”
“What’s ailing the California Supreme Court? Its productivity has plummeted”
