Yesterday’s Supreme Court conference didn’t yield any straight grants, nor was there much else to report. There were two more Racial Justice Act orders to show cause, a grant-and-hold, the disposition of a bunch of former grant-and-holds, and the denial of review in yet another case — a frivolous appeal — on the court’s pandemic docket.
It was one more short-handed conference, with just six justices participating, because Governor Newsom has left unfilled a nearly-nine-month-long vacancy (nine months!) on the court, a situation that might still continue for a while.
More Racial Justice Act OSCs
The court issued orders to show cause, returnable in the superior court, in the pro per habeas corpus petitions in In re Clinton and In re Ewing, involving claims under California’s Racial Justice Act (see here, here, and here).
In Clinton, cause is to be shown “why petitioner is not entitled to the appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (e)(5) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner who pleads a plausible allegation of a violation of the Racial Justice Act] in light of statistical data cited by petitioner demonstrating racial disparities in Three Strikes sentences imposed in Los Angeles County and to the disclosure of discovery pursuant to Penal Code, section 745, subdivision (d) [providing for the disclosure of evidence relevant to a potential violation of the Racial Justice Act in the possession or control of the state].” (Emphasis added.)
In Ewing, cause is to be shown “why petitioner is not entitled to the appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (e)(5) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner who pleads a plausible allegation of a violation of the Racial Justice Act] in light of statistical data cited by petitioner demonstrating racial disparities in Three Strikes sentences imposed in Shasta County and to the disclosure of discovery pursuant to Penal Code, section 745, subdivision (d) [providing for the disclosure of evidence relevant to a potential violation of the Racial Justice Act in the possession or control of the state].” (Emphasis added.)
The court has made many orders like this before. (See here and, recently, here.)
Review denied: frivolous anti-masking appeal
The court denied review in G.W. v. Coronado Unified School District, a follow-on to last year’s Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal, unpublished opinion that rejected and found frivolous an appeal from an attorney fee and costs award based on an unsuccessful challenge to the adoption and enforcement of a high school masking policy during the COVID pandemic. The Supreme Court denied review of that opinion and the plaintiffs have sought certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The most recent petition for review came after Division One denied a motion to recall the remittitur and reinstate the appeal. Chief Justice Guerrero was recused from both petition for review denials.
Criminal case grant-and-hold
There was just one criminal case grant-and-hold case, another waiting for a decision in People v. Eaton (see here). The court denied a depublication request in the case.
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
The court removed from its docket 11 cases that had been grant-and-holds for the May felony-murder-rule decision in People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671 (see here). Eight cases were remanded to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Morris, while the court dismissed review in the other three.
