Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinion in J.O. v. Superior Court. (Briefs here; oral argument video here.)
As summarized by court staff, the issue is: “Should this court’s decision in Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 be overruled or limited insofar as it allowed a public agency to bring ‘blanket challenges’ against particular judges under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6?” The court later asked for supplemental briefing on this question: “Assuming arguendo that ‘blanket challenges’ to a particular judge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 implicate separation of powers concerns, do those concerns apply to actions taken only by executive branch offices such as a county counsel or a district attorney’s office, or does the concern apply more broadly to non-executive branch entities such as a public defender’s office or a private law firm? (See, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Tejeda) (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 892, 896; id. at p. 912, fn. 2 (conc. opn. of Aronson, J.); id. at p. 930 (dis. opn. of Thompson, J.).)”
The court granted review in December 2024. More about the case here. First District, Division Four, Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Tracie L. Brown is the pro tem.
This will be the third of seven opinions for matters argued in March. Because of the 90-day rule, the other four opinions should file on Monday. (See here.) And those four could be momentous. They’re all death penalty appeals that were reargued in March. Besides the numerous separate issues in each appeal, the cases raise significant common issues under California’s Racial Justice Act. (See here, here, and here.)
The J.O. opinion can be viewed tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m.
