The Supreme Court yesterday announced its seven-case June calendar, the last hearings of the term before the traditional July and August argument hiatus.
As we’ve mentioned, over the last few terms, the Supreme Court has been reverting to a practice of having the heaviest oral argument calendars towards the end of the term. That changed for a time when a policy instituted in 2016–2017 had the calendars more evenly balanced throughout the term.
With seven June arguments, the court is on track to hear (or rehear) 50 cases for the 2025–2026 term over a total of 11 calendars. The final five of the 11 calendars will have 32 of the 50 arguments. The last three calendars, over a period of just 27 days (early-May, late-May, and June), will have 22 arguments.
Because of Justice Jenkins’s October 2025 retirement, there will be — for the ninth straight calendar — a Court of Appeal justice sitting pro tem in each case. The pro tems will be named later. (See: Why does the Supreme Court use pro tems?)
On Tuesday and Wednesday, June 2 and 3, in Los Angeles, the court will hear these cases (with the issue or issues presented as summarized by court staff or, if indicated, limited by the court itself):
People v. Pearson: This is an automatic direct appeal from a June 2013 judgment of death. Unlike in discretionary review cases, the court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel were appointed in May 2014. Initial briefing was completed in January 2016. Defense counsel withdrew and new counsel was appointed in December 2018. Supplemental briefing was completed in December 2025.
Mayor v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board: “(1) May the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board apply equitable tolling to act upon a petition for reconsideration beyond the 60-day period provided in Labor Code section 5909, when the Appeals Board did not receive the petition for reconsideration until after the 60-day period has elapsed? (2) Did the Court of Appeal act in excess of its jurisdiction in granting relief under traditional mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085), where petitioner did not file a timely petition for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5909?” The court granted review in December 2024. More about the case here. Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae brief.
People v. Argueta: This is an automatic direct appeal from a February 2007 judgment of death. Unlike in discretionary review cases, the court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel were appointed in December 2010. Initial briefing was completed in March 2016. Supplemental briefing was completed in December 2025.
People v. Hazlett: This is an automatic direct appeal from a July 2004 judgment of death. Unlike in discretionary review cases, the court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel were appointed in August 2009. Initial briefing was completed in September 2013. Supplemental briefing was completed in September 2025.
Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts: “Does the prohibition on electronic recording of certain proceedings in Government Code section 69957, subdivision (a) violate the California Constitution when an official court reporter is unavailable and a litigant cannot afford to pay a private court reporter?” The court issued an order to show cause in February 2025. More about the case here and here.
Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company v. City of Carson: “Must a claimant for a local government tax refund comply with a local administrative review procedure prior to pursuing its remedies under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), or does the Act preempt such a requirement under the doctrine of field preemption?” The court granted review in May 2025. More about the case here.
Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water: When the court granted review in April 2025, it limited the issue to: “When a public entity files an eminent domain action seeking to take privately held public utility property, and the owner objects to the right to take, what is the proper standard of judicial review for the trial court to apply to determine whether the property owner has rebutted the presumptions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1245.250, subdivision (b) and 1240.650, subdivision (c)?” More about the case here. Horvitz & Levy is counsel for the defendant.
Briefs for the cases will soon be posted here. The arguments will be live streamed. Opinions in the cases should file by August 31.
[May 19 update: some of the pro tems are —
For Mayor, the online docket says it’s Second District, Division One, Justice Dorothy Kim. But Dorothy Kim is in Division Five and Justice Michelle Kim is in Division One. Also, Dorothy Kim served as a pro tem several months ago, so I’m thinking the pro tem is actually Michelle Kim.
For Hazlett, First District, Division Three, Justice Carin T. Fujisaki.
For Tesoro, Sixth District Justice Adrienne M. Grover.]
[May 21 update: it actually is Justice Dorothy Kim who’s the pro tem in Mayor. Part of the confusion was caused by my mistake; part was an incorrect docket entry that has been corrected. See here.]
[Another May 19 update: Argueta might be continued. Defense counsel yesterday filed a letter asking for a continuance. The court today asked the attorney for “additional information to assist it in determining whether extraordinary cause has been shown to avoid June oral argument, including any details as may be available immediately after the May 20, 2026 appointment referenced in that letter regarding (1) when you will be undergoing surgery and (2) whether you will be able to argue the case in June, if your surgery is not scheduled to occur on or prior to the June oral argument date.”]
[May 22 update: The Argueta argument will be continued. After the attorney submitted another letter, the court today said it “finds extraordinary cause to continue oral argument . . . to a future oral argument session.” The next session will be during the week of Labor Day in September.]
