At its conference yesterday, a double one, the court took two cases, dumped one, and made other noteworthy rulings. It was another conference with only six justices participating. Here’s a recap.
Ninth Circuit case accepted
See: Supreme Court accepts Ninth Circuit’s shareholder damages case.
Old review-granted case off the docket
See: Supreme Court un-grants review in taxpayer standing case.
As in Raju, the court returned a Raju grant-and-hold for reconsideration in light of Taking Offense v. State of California (2025) 18 Cal.5th 891: Superior Court v. Superior Court (see here.)
Separate statement in sentencing case
See: Three-justice concurring statement urges legislative change to sentencing law.
Review granted: ministerial exception and labor law
The court agreed to hear Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center and it limited the issue to, “Does the ministerial exception arising under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution categorically preclude wage and hour claims by a minister against a religious organization without any inquiry into whether the claim touches upon any ecclesiastical concern?” The Religion Clauses have been held to “foreclose certain employment discrimination claims brought against religious organizations” based on “the general principle of church autonomy.” (Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020) 591 U.S. 732, 747.)
Rejecting Ninth Circuit case law to the contrary, the First District, Division Five, Court of Appeal’s published opinion held the ministerial exception does not “bar[ ] claims under California’s minimum wage and overtime laws [when] there is no evidence that those claims would interfere ‘with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself’ ” and when the claims don’t “raise an ecclesiastical concern.” The opinion says the plaintiff “only challenges the Center’s failure to pay her a minimum wage and overtime wages for work that she has already performed as part of the Center’s commercial activities.” [Sic: should be “challenges only.”]
Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus letter in support of granting review.
Racial Justice Act OSC
The court granted a pro per’s petition for review and directed the Third District to issue an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, “why petitioner is not entitled to 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 [see here, here, and here]] in light of the statistical data provided by petitioner demonstrating racial disparities in the imposition of Three Strikes sentences in Sacramento County.”
The court has made many orders like this before. (See here and, recently, here.)
Grant-and-transfer: pre-trial detention
The court granted review in In re King and transferred the case back to the Fourth District, Division Two, which had summarily denied a habeas corpus petition. Division Two is directed to issue an order to show cause “why petitioner is not entitled to relief on the ground the [superior court’s] detention order failed to address the feasibility of less restrictive alternatives to detention with sufficient specificity to facilitate review of its detention order. (In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135, 154-156.)” Regarding Humphrey, see here.
Grant-and-transfer: false evidence
The court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the Court of Appeal, regarding the pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re McCowen. Cause is to be shown “why petitioner is not entitled to relief on the grounds the prosecution knowingly introduced false testimony in violation of petitioner’s due process rights under Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264 and that false evidence was introduced at trial under Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (b)(1)(A).”
In Napue, the U.S. Supreme Court held “a State may not knowingly use false evidence, including false testimony, to obtain a tainted conviction.” (360 U.S. at p. 269.) It reversed a conviction following a trial at which the prosecutor knowingly elicited false testimony from a witness that the witness had not been promised “consideration in return for his testimony.”
Grant-and-transfer: vexatious litigant defendant
After the Second District dismissed appeals by a pro per defendant because she is a vexatious litigant who hadn’t obtained leave to appeal, the Supreme Court granted review and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal with directions to “reconsider the matter in light of John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 100.”
In John, the Supreme Court held the “prefiling requirements do not apply to a self-represented vexatious litigant’s appeal of a judgment or interlocutory order in an action in which he or she was the defendant.” (See here.)
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were four criminal case grant-and-holds: one more waiting for a decision in In re Hernandez (now People v. Hernandez) (see here, here, and here) and three more holding for People v. Eaton (see here).
