https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/supreme-court-makes-appointments-committee-judicial-ethics-opinions-3 Supreme Court Makes Appointments to the Committee on Judicial Ethics OpinionsBalassone, Merrill Wed, 10/21/2026 - 16:00 News Release The California Supreme Court today announced the appointment of two new members and the reappointment of one member to the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO), an independent committee that helps inform the judiciary and the public on judicial ethics topics. The court appointed Judge Michael B. Harper of the Superior Court of Trinity County to fill the vacancy that will be created by Judge Robert J. Trentacosta’s retirement next month. Judge Harper will serve the remaining partial term from Nov. 21 through Dec. 31, 2027.  The court also appointed Judge Patricia L. Kelly of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County to fill the vacancy that will be created by Justice Marla J. Miller’s departure from the committee at the end of this year following her retirement earlier this month. Judge Kelly will serve a full four-year term beginning Jan. 1, 2027. The court reappointed Justice Shama Hakim Mesiwala of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, to a four-year term beginning Jan. 1, 2027. About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, and commissioners. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal opinions, informal opinions, and oral advice on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities.   https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/year-review-california-supreme-court-2025-2026 Year in Review: California Supreme Court 2025-2026Martin.Novitski Mon, 10/05/2026 - 10:53 News Release Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero has emphasized that the California judiciary works in concert to make justice accessible to all. That collaboration was especially evident during the Supreme Court’s September 2025–August 2026 court year. With the high court having a temporarily vacant seat following the October 2025 retirement of Justice Martin Jenkins, 42 Court of Appeal justices served as pro tempore justices in cases it decided last year. Representing all six appellate districts, these justices participated in cases involving the right to bail, tort liability for drug manufacturers, and peremptory challenges to judges, among other issues of statewide importance. The California Supreme Court hears argument in August 2026, with a justice pro tempore participating. “The past year once again demonstrated how all levels of the judicial branch, and judges across the state, work together to ensure that cases are resolved fairly and efficiently,” said Chief Justice Guerrero. “The Supreme Court benefits immeasurably from the insights and perspectives of the Court of Appeal justices who serve with us. On behalf of the entire court, I thank them for their valuable contributions.” The court filed 52 majority opinions during the 2025–2026 court year. (See chart and “Notable Decisions” below.) The court received 5,613 filings, including 3,470 petitions for review, and resolved 5,500 filings, including 3,480 petitions for review.   Justice Martin Jenkins retired in October 2025. Retirement of Justice Jenkins Justice Martin Jenkins retired in October 2025. Justice Jenkins’s five years with the court represented the capstone of a judicial career that began in 1989 and included more than a decade at the federal district court (1997–2008) and a similar tenure at the First District Court of Appeal (2008–2019). On his retirement, Chief Justice Guerrero described Justice Jenkins, the first openly gay justice and the third African-American man to serve on the court, as “a constant source of inspiration.” Passings Former Justice Joyce Kennard died in August 2026. Justice Kennard served on the court from 1989 until her retirement in 2014. The second woman and the first person of Asian descent to be appointed to the court, Justice Kennard was well-known for her independence and her intellectual rigor. At Justice Kennard’s final oral argument session, former Justice Marvin Baxter said, “Whether they agree or disagree with her on particular cases, her colleagues know she has given each and every one her thoughtful, sincere, and scholarly attention.”  The court will hold an in memoriam session later this court year to recognize Justice Kennard and her impact on the law. At its November 2025 oral argument session, the court honored the late Justice Joseph Grodin, who served on the court between 1982 and 1987 and died in April 2025. Speakers offering tributes included former Chief Supervising Attorney Jake Dear, who had served as a staff attorney to Justice Grodin and described him as both an “excellent justice” and an “extraordinary man.” Dear, who worked at the court for more than four decades and served as chief supervising attorney from 2007 until his retirement in 2023, passed away in June 2026. Chief Justice Guerrero paid tribute to Dear’s service, noting that “Jake was more than just a brilliant attorney. He cared deeply about the court as an institution, including all of his coworkers. Through the connections he made, generations of attorneys benefited from his sincerity, curiosity, intelligence, and good humor.” Special Sessions The court convened two special oral argument sessions during the 2025–2026 court year.  The first was an October 2025 outreach session at Colton Hall in Monterey, where California’s first constitution was drafted in 1849. The court’s outreach sessions provide students at locations across the state with an opportunity to interact with the justices and watch oral arguments in person. The second special session was held in August 2026 in San Francisco. The justices heard oral argument in two cases, Cervantes v. Bianco and Bonta v. Bianco, arising out of the Riverside County sheriff’s seizure of several hundred thousand ballots cast in that county at the November 2025 statewide special election. The court issued decisions in both cases in September 2026. Notable Decisions The court’s 52 decisions last court year were evenly split between civil and criminal cases. Notable decisions included: J.O. v. Superior Court, decided in May, addressed the abuse of peremptory challenges under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. This statute allows a party or an attorney to disqualify a judge from a case by filing an affidavit or making a sworn statement declaring that the judge is prejudiced against them or their interests. The unanimous decision in J.O. overruled past precedent to the extent it had concluded that abusive “blanket” challenges to judges under section 170.6 did not substantially impair the functioning of the courts and that courts could not entertain as-applied challenges to alleged blanket abuses of the disqualification procedure. Drawing upon the multi-step test used to ascertain whether a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror was influenced by discrimination, the court adopted a similar inquiry for courts to distinguish between valid section 170.6 challenges and bad faith blanket challenges. Several decisions rendered during the past year addressed issues arising under the Racial Justice Act (the RJA), a statute that provides avenues for relief when criminal proceedings are tainted by racial bias. In March, the court heard reargument in four cases — People v. Bankston, People v. Barrera, People v. Chhuon and Pan, and People v. Demolle — to allow for further consideration of the RJA issues presented in each matter. One of the issues addressed at reargument concerned whether a violation of the RJA automatically requires reversal of the judgment in a direct appeal, or whether such a violation can be found harmless. The five-justice majority opinion in Bankston concluded that a violation of the RJA based on the use of allegedly racially discriminatory language will not necessarily result in reversal, at least in cases in which the judgment was entered before the RJA’s effective date. Instead, the majority determined, this type of RJA violation may be found harmless if the People establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to the verdict.  In re Kowalczyk presented important questions regarding the right to bail guaranteed under the state Constitution. The court unanimously concluded that a court may deny bail only in certain limited circumstances specifically described in the state Constitution, and that when these circumstances do not exist “and a court finds it necessary to condition pretrial release on posting monetary bail, a court must set bail in a reasonable amount based on an individualized assessment of the totality of the circumstances.” By a 6–1 margin, the court held in Gilead Tenofovir Cases that a drug manufacturer that sold a nondefective drug product could not be held liable in negligence for not taking additional steps to develop, secure regulatory approval for, and then market another, allegedly safer drug as a substitute. The majority opinion determined that the connection between the drug manufacturer’s decisions and any injury to plaintiffs implicated “a speculative chain of intervening events and discretionary decisions by third parties that are neither foreseeable in any concrete sense nor derivative of the manufacturer’s conduct.” The majority also expressed concern that imposing liability for not developing an assertedly safer substitute could skew drug manufacturers’ incentives and deter innovation. Justice Kelli Evans and Justice Leondra Kruger listen to oral argument. In Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court, the court confronted the statewide shortage of official court reporters responsible for creating an official verbatim record of trial court proceedings, which is necessary for many appeals to be heard on their merits. In a unanimous opinion, the court held that, if an official court reporter is unavailable and a litigant is unable to afford to hire a private court reporter, trial courts are required to use electronic recording to create an official verbatim record. The court relied on the common law in forma pauperis doctrine, which functions to ensure indigent litigants have meaningful access to justice notwithstanding their financial circumstances. It concluded that this doctrine prevailed over a statute prohibiting trial courts from employing electronic recording to create an official verbatim record, and that electronic recording must be used in appropriate circumstances to provide indigent litigants with meaningful access to the appellate process. Judicial Ethics, the State Bar, and Attorney Admissions In June 2026, the court approved new rule 9.81 of the California Rules of Court to govern the composition, duties, and procedures of the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics. The advisory committee, which the court created in 1995 and had previously met on an informal and irregular basis, considers and offers recommendations to the court regarding possible amendments to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and its commentary. The new court rule sets forth the committee’s membership requirements, terms of service for members, and procedures for considering potential amendments to the code and its commentary, and further requires the committee to meet at least once each year. The court also considered numerous requests by the State Bar to approve changes to the California Rules of Court and Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys. One of the requests approved by the court requires attorneys to annually reaffirm their oath to “strive to conduct [themselves] at all times with dignity, courtesy, and integrity” and to uphold the United States and California Constitutions. The court also approved a rule amendment prohibiting attorneys from soliciting the subjects of domestic violence restraining orders as new clients before these orders have been formally served, curtailing a practice that had provided the subjects of these orders with advance notice of their existence. Another proposal approved by the court broadened training opportunities for aspiring lawyers who are not enrolled in a law school and are instead studying law under the supervision of a law office or a judge. Rule amendments now allow these individuals to participate in the Certified Law Students program, through which they can represent clients on a limited basis, under attorney supervision. The court also took other actions pertaining to attorney admissions. In September, the court approved a series of amendments to the California Rules of Court that expanded the role of the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners in overseeing changes to the bar exam and attorney admissions. The court later approved new guidelines developed by the committee that impose more rigorous qualifications standards for experts retained to help develop and review draft bar exam questions. And in July, the court agreed with a State Bar recommendation and determined that the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ NextGen Uniform Bar Exam will be used at future examinations, beginning with the July 2028 exam. The court further directed the examiners to develop a proposal regarding a California-specific test component that would potentially accompany the NextGen exam beginning in July 2029.   Summary of Key Court Year Statistics [September 1, 2025 – August 31, 2026]  Action/Category Number Opinions 52 Civil Cases 26 Criminal Cases 14 Death Penalty Cases 12 Filings 5,613 Petitions for Review 3,470                                 Civil Appeals & Writs 1,367                          Criminal Appeals & Writs 2,090                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 13 Original Proceedings 2,143                        Civil Writs & Other Matters 319                 Criminal Writs & Other Matters 916                                 Executive Clemency 27                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 3                 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus 6                                      State Bar Matters 872 Dispositions 5,500 Petitions for Review 3,480                                 Civil Appeals & Writs 1,353                          Criminal Appeals & Writs 2,114                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 13 Original Proceedings 2,020                        Civil Writs & Other Matters 316                 Criminal Writs & Other Matters 827                                 Executive Clemency 21                 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus 1 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus [Transferred] 1                                      State Bar Matters 854 Publication/Depublication   Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Published 2 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished (Review not Granted) 7 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished or Not Citable(Following Grant of Review) 27 ​ https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-hold-october-7-oral-argument-san-francisco California Supreme Court to Hold October 7 Oral Argument in San FranciscoBalassone, Merrill Wed, 09/30/2026 - 12:51 News Release The California Supreme Court has announced that, due to unforeseen circumstances, its October 7, 2026 oral argument calendar, previously scheduled for hearing as a special outreach session in Redding, will instead be heard in its San Francisco courtroom. The court regrets that it is unable to visit Redding at this time, and it plans on conducting a special outreach session in Redding in a future court year. The oral argument calendar will remain as previously set by the court. Oral argument will be livestreamed on the Judicial Branch website, supreme.courts.ca.gov and on the California Courts Newsroom, newsroom.courts.ca.gov. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/memoriam-california-supreme-court-justice-joyce-l-kennard-1941-2026 In Memoriam: California Supreme Court Justice Joyce L. Kennard (1941–2026)Balassone, Merrill Fri, 09/18/2026 - 14:36 News Release Joyce L. Kennard, whose perseverance and professional excellence propelled her to become one of the longest-serving justices in the history of the California Supreme Court, has passed away. She was 85. “Justice Kennard’s life was a testament to resilience, and she brought that same strength to 25 years of service to this court,” said Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. “She carefully analyzed the law, studied the facts, and strived to protect fundamental freedoms and promote the independence of the judiciary. Her rigor on the bench and her extraordinary personal journey continue to inspire attorneys and judges.” Justice Kennard was born in Indonesia to parents of Dutch, Indonesian, Chinese, and German descent. As a young child during World War II, she and her family were held in a Japanese internment camp. As a teenager, she had her leg amputated after developing a tumor and wore a prosthetic for the rest of her life. She immigrated to the United States and settled in Los Angeles, where she worked as a secretary while pursuing her education. She earned an associate’s degree from Pasadena City College, then a bachelor’s degree, a master’s in public administration, and a law degree, all from the University of Southern California. Justice Kennard began her legal career as a Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Justice. Later, she served as a Senior Attorney for Associate Justice Edwin F. Beach at the Second District Court of Appeal. Governor George Deukmejian appointed her to the Los Angeles Municipal Court in 1986, to the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 1987, to the Second District Court of Appeal in 1988, and finally to the Supreme Court in 1989, making her only the second woman and the first person of Asian descent to serve on the state’s highest court. During her 25 years on the court, Justice Kennard developed a reputation for independence and was known for her rigorous questioning during oral arguments. She retired from the court in April 2014. At the last oral argument session in which she participated, fellow Associate Justice Marvin Baxter described Justice Kennard’s life as “a successful effort to overcome extraordinary challenge and adversity” and noted her “record of achieving success against all odds.” He offered the following tribute: “ ‘Dedication’ is a word that perfectly applies to Justice Kennard. Whether they agree or disagree with her on particular cases, her colleagues know she has given each and every one her thoughtful, sincere, and scholarly attention. And drawing upon her own remarkable life experience, she has striven always for excellence, fairness, and the correct rule of law. This is her only agenda, and no one works harder to get it right. And for these qualities, she has earned the highest respect of her fellow justices.” In her letter to Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Jr. announcing her retirement, Justice Kennard wrote, “Any success I achieved could have happened only in America, a land that encourages impossible dreams, a land where one can succeed against all odds.” The court will convene an in memoriam session in recognition of Justice Kennard during its 2026–2027 term.   https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-hold-oral-argument-outreach-session-shasta-county California Supreme Court to Hold Oral Argument Outreach Session in Shasta CountyBalassone, Merrill Thu, 09/17/2026 - 11:24 News Release Media interested in attending the session are asked to contact merrill.balassone@jud.ca.gov The California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Redding on Oct. 7, continuing its tradition of holding annual outreach sessions in locations across the state. The special session will be held at Shasta Union High School District and will be attended by students and teachers from nearby schools. Before observing oral argument, students will have an opportunity to ask the justices questions about their roles in the judicial system. Said Chief Justice Guerrero: “The California Supreme Court is honored to welcome Shasta County students to our special oral argument session. The opportunity for these students to observe real legal arguments helps turn an abstract idea like the rule of law into something tangible. We hope they leave here with a better understanding of California’s justice system and even consider a future career in law.” The court last held oral argument in Shasta County in 2005. Last year’s special outreach session took place in Monterey, with previous recent sessions in Fresno (in 2024) and San Diego (in 2023). The session will be open to the general public. The event will also be broadcast live on the Supreme Court website and the California Courts Newsroom. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-makes-appointments-state-bar-board-trustees-committee-bar-examiners-1 California Supreme Court Makes Appointments to State Bar Board of Trustees, Committee of Bar ExaminersKaren.Datangel Thu, 08/20/2026 - 12:11 News Release The Supreme Court of California today announced six reappointments and two appointments to the State Bar of California's Board of Trustees and the Committee of Bar Examiners, all effective September 18. The court reappointed public member José Cisneros as chair of the Board of Trustees for a second and final one-year term. Cisneros is the first non-attorney to be appointed chair of the board. He has served as the Treasurer for the City and County of San Francisco since 2004. The court also reappointed public member Dr. Mark Toney to a second one-year term as board vice chair. Dr. Toney has served as the executive director of The Utility Reform Network since 2008. Additionally, the court reappointed attorney David Jargiello to his first four-year term on the Board of Trustees. Jargiello was appointed to a partial term last year to fill a position vacated by Brandon Stallings. The Board of Trustees is the State Bar’s governing body that establishes the strategic direction for the agency and ensures that the organization is fulfilling its mission. In addition, the court made appointments to the Committee of Bar Examiners. The court reappointed attorney Ashley Silva-Guzman to another term on the committee. The court also appointed Silva-Guzman, the committee’s current vice chair, as the committee’s next chair for a one-year term. The court appointed public member Kareem Gongora to a one-year term as the committee’s vice chair. Gongora is an appointee of the Speaker of the Assembly and has served as the director of communications and public information at the Riverside Superior Court since 2025. The court also reappointed Justice Shama Mesiwala and Judge Renee C. Reyna each to four-year terms on the committee. Justice Mesiwala has served in the Third Appellate District since 2023. Judge Reyna has served in the San Mateo Superior Court since 2021. The Committee of Bar Examiners oversees development and administration of the California Bar Exam and reviews the moral character determination and admissions processes for attorneys. The committee also accredits state law schools and registers unaccredited state law schools. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-sets-2027-oral-argument-calendar California Supreme Court Sets 2027 Oral Argument CalendarBalassone, Merrill Thu, 08/20/2026 - 09:37 News Release The Supreme Court of California today published its oral argument calendar for 2027. The court will continue its practice of hearing oral argument in courtrooms around the state. In addition to a special outreach session, oral argument will be held in San Francisco (in January, March, May, September, and November); Sacramento (in February); and Los Angeles (in April, June, and December). The court's practice of holding oral argument sessions in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los Angeles dates back to 1878. Next year’s special outreach oral argument session will take place in October at Shadow Hills High School in Indio in the Coachella Valley. The court’s special outreach sessions provide high school students and their teachers across the state with an opportunity to attend oral argument and learn about the judicial process. The 2027 calendar also identifies when the court's weekly petition conferences will occur, as well as court holidays. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-approves-adoption-nextgen-uniform-bar-exam California Supreme Court Approves Adoption of NextGen Uniform Bar ExamBalassone, Merrill Wed, 07/15/2026 - 12:40 News Release The California Supreme Court on Wednesday approved a State Bar of California recommendation to replace the current General Bar Exam with the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ NextGen Uniform Bar Exam beginning with the July 2028 administration. Development of a California-Specific Component The court also directed the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners to develop and submit, by Feb. 26, 2027, a proposal for the court’s consideration of a California-specific test component to accompany the NextGen exam beginning with the July 2029 administration. This component would also serve as the Attorneys' Examination for qualifying attorney applicants. If adopted by the court, the California-specific component would test areas of California law and may include subjects currently covered on the General Bar Exam, as well as California employment law and California family law. The Committee of Bar Examiners would determine how the component is scored, including its relationship to NextGen scoring and the overall passing score for the General Bar Exam. Examination Schedule and Scoring The General Bar Exam will continue to be administered in-person on the last Tuesdays in February and July each year. The length of each session, the order of testing, and the overall length of the exam may be modified for applicants who have been granted certain testing accommodations. The court ordered the new bar exam’s passing score to be equivalent to the current total scaled passing score of at least 1390 out of 2000 points. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-justices-mark-americas-250th-anniversary California Supreme Court Justices Mark America's 250th AnniversaryBalassone, Merrill Mon, 06/29/2026 - 11:35 News Release On the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, justices of the California Supreme Court reflect on the importance of justice and the rule of law as embodied in the United States and California constitutions. "All California courts are committed to safeguarding the structure and the fundamental principles which form the basis for our government and the promise of this country," said Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. The Declaration of Independence closes with the signers mutually pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to one another: "In the same type of spirit, the people of this state play an important role in the mutual pledge that we have as it affects the courts, whether it's through jury service, civic education, or other forms of civic engagement," Chief Justice Guerrero said. "And the courts for our part across our state stand ready to uphold our commitment to ensuring that everyone is treated with fairness and equality under the law." Watch the video below to hear justices of the California Supreme Court share their reflections on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/memoriam-jake-dear-chief-supervising-attorney-california-supreme-court In Memoriam: Jake Dear, Chief Supervising Attorney of the California Supreme Court Balassone, Merrill Wed, 06/10/2026 - 09:12 News Release Jake Dear, who served as chief supervising attorney of the California Supreme Court under three Chief Justices as part of his 40-year career at the court, died Friday, June 5 after a short illness. Dear, who was also widely known as a leading scholar regarding the court’s history and influence, was 69. Dear joined the court in 1982 as an extern and then served as an annual law clerk for Justice Stanley Mosk. After a short time in private practice, he rejoined the court as a chambers attorney for Justice Joseph Grodin, then transitioned to a supervising attorney role within the chambers of Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas. Beginning in 2007, he served as chief supervising attorney under Chief Justices Ronald M. George and Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, a position he held until his retirement in January 2023. Even after retiring, he continued to volunteer his services to the court on a pro bono basis. Shortly before his passing, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero provided Dear with a formal commemoration honoring his service. The commemoration described Dear as “a historian of the court and a steward of its future,” and expressed “the profound gratitude of the California Supreme Court, the Judicial Council, and the entire judicial branch for his lifetime of dedication to the administration of justice, the enrichment and preservation of our judicial history, and the strengthening of California’s highest court.” At the time of Dear’s retirement in 2023, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye called his contributions to California jurisprudence “immeasurable and everlasting.” "Jake Dear — his name, identity, and influence — is synonymous with the excellence and integrity of the California Supreme Court," she said. Colleagues remembered Dear as much for his character as for his legal acumen. On his passing, Chief Justice Guerrero said that “Jake was more than just a brilliant attorney. He cared deeply about the court as an institution, including all of his coworkers. Through the connections he made, generations of attorneys benefited from his sincerity, curiosity, intelligence, and good humor.” In addition to his work at the court, Dear served for many years as associate editor of the California Supreme Court Historical Society Review, and he wrote and spoke extensively regarding the court’s history and the influence its decisions have had on courts in other jurisdictions. Dear was a graduate of UC Davis School of Law, where he also served as editor in chief of the UC Davis Law Review. He is survived by his wife, Maureen (Mo), and their son, Adam. Read more remembrances from former Chief Justices and California Supreme Court staff in the California Supreme Court Historical Society Review feature “Portraits of Jake," and Chief Justice Guerrero's commemoration.