It’s very unusual for the Supreme Court to have more than one argument in a case, but in March the court will hear rearguments in four. All are death penalty cases in which there has been supplemental briefing about California’s Racial Justice Act. (See here, here and here.) The court said last week that the rearguments will be “limited” and that, because the RJA issues are the same in all four cases, “counsel in these cases are encouraged to confer and coordinate with one another as appropriate.”
There will also be three cases heard for the first time, including one that’s currently the oldest non-capital case on the court’s docket. Another of the three calls into question the validity of blanket disqualifications of judges.
Justice Martin Jenkins retired over three months ago and wasn’t going to hear any more arguments after he left the court (see here), but, because he heard the first arguments in the four death penalty cases before he retired, he’s coming back as a pro tem to hear the rearguments. There will be Court of Appeal justices sitting pro tem in the other three cases. Only one of the pro tems has been assigned yet.
On Wednesday and Thursday, March 4 and 5, in San Francisco, the court will hear these cases (with the issue or issues presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself):
J.O. v. Superior Court: “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 granted review in December 2024. In September of last year, the court 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.).)” More about the case here. The pro tem justice will be assigned later.
J.M. v. Illuminate Education: “Is a company that stores students’ confidential personal and medical information through its work providing software to school districts subject to liability to these students under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.) and the Customer Records Act (Civ. Code, § 1798.80 et seq.) following disclosure of such information through a data breach?” The court granted review in October 2024. More about the case here. The pro tem justice will be assigned later.
People v. Mitchell: “Does Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), which limits a trial court’s discretion to impose upper term sentences, apply retroactively to defendants sentenced pursuant to stipulated plea agreements?” This is the old case; review was granted in December 2022 and briefing was completed in June 2023. More about the case here. Sixth District Court of Appeal Justice Daniel H. Bromberg is the pro tem.
These are the death penalty cases to be reargued:
People v. Bankston, first argued in early May 2025, is an automatic direct appeal from a January 1995 judgment of death. Aside from RJA issues, court staff has noted that Bankston “include[s] an issue involving the retroactivity of the provision in Assembly Bill No. 2799 (Stats. 2022, ch. 973) limiting the admissibility of creative expressions (Pen. Code, § 352.2).” (See here.) Counsel was appointed in November 1999. Initial briefing was completed in June 2014.
People v. Barrera, first argued in June 2025, is an automatic direct appeal from a December 2001 judgment of death. The Mexican government filed an amicus brief in June 2023. Barrera was convicted of killing two of his children. A Los Angeles Times article about his sentencing reported that a letter from Mexico’s consul general “said her country has ‘absolute opposition to capital punishment’ and is concerned about the effect of Barrera’s execution on his surviving children, some of whom are Mexican citizens.” Counsel was appointed in November 2006. Initial briefing was completed in April 2015.
People v. Chhuon and Pan, first argued in late May 2025, is an automatic direct appeal from March 2002 judgments of death. Counsel was appointed in December 2007 and January 2008. Initial briefing was completed in November 2016.
People v. Demolle, first argued in October 2025, is an automatic direct appeal from a December 2007 judgment of death. Counsel was appointed in March 2011. Initial briefing was completed in December 2017.
Briefs for the cases will soon be posted here. (Some of the briefs in the death penalty cases are already posted.) The arguments will be live streamed. Opinions in the cases should file by June 1, although the court has left open the possibility of later submission dates and, thus, possibly later than June 1 opinions, in the death penalty cases.
