https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/civic-learning-award-presentations-complete-constitution-month-commemoration Civic Learning Award Presentations Complete Constitution Month CommemorationMartin.Novitski Mon, 10/20/2025 - 11:18 Feature The month of September offered opportunities for California’s public schools to celebrate the U.S. Constitution thanks to Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero’s Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative, and the Civic Learning Award program she co-sponsors with State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. The Civic Learning Award of Excellence is traditionally presented by the Chief Justice at the beginning of the school year. This year, she was able to make all three appearances during Constitution Month where she was joined by justices and judges from local appellate and trial courts. Representatives from the legislative branch were also in attendance at all three celebrations to celebrate school efforts to expand civic learning. Award of Excellence Recipients Host the Chief Justice Norte Vista High School in Riverside County was the first honoree to host the Chief Justice. She was joined by Administrative Presiding Justice Judith McConnell, who leads the Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative. On September 25, the Chief Justice presented the second Award of Excellence to Ida Jew Academy and Valle Vista Elementary School (IJAVVE) in Santa Clara County. She was joined onstage by Santa Clara County Judge Julia Alloggiamento, the vice-lead of the Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative. The award celebration was supported by Justice Cynthia Lie, Judge Sunil Kulkarni and representatives from Senator Cortese's office. “By embracing the principles of civic learning, you’re already playing a vital role in shaping a brighter future for all of us,” Chief Justice Guerrero told students. On September 30, Chief Justice Guerrero closed out Constitution Month with a visit to Sparks Middle School in the Hacienda La Puente Unified School District in Los Angeles County. The school, receiving its inaugural Award of Excellence after previous recognitions at various levels, serves as a model for cultivating young leaders. Guests at the event included Los Angeles County Presiding Judge Sergio C. Tapia II, Assistant Presiding Judge Ricardo Ocampo and court outreach staff. Representatives from the legislative and executive branch also lent their support and joined approximately 75 students from various leadership programs at the school. Sparks Middle School employs a civics program that is largely student-run, with 95% of students engaged in civic activity outside the classroom. As she presented the award to school leadership, Chief Justice Guerrero encouraged students to continue developing the skills needed to be informed participants in their community. Chief Justice Encourages Students Prior to each award presentation, Chief Justice Guerrero spent time with student leaders getting to know more about their aspirations and reflections on their experiences in the past year. Students took turns asking the judicial branch leader about her experiences as a judge and her ascent to the role of Chief Justice. For the last two visits, Chief Justice Guerrero also administered an oath of office that officially inducted elected student leaders. Students pledged to serve as representatives of their respective schools with integrity, fairness, and respect for the community. “I want you to remember, that even at your age, your ideas and your voice matter,” Chief Justice Guerrero said. Throughout the month, appellate justices and trial judges hand-delivered awards to schools selected for 2025 honors. In total, 35 schools were honored. (View list) Award Applications The Civic Learning Award program aims to honor schools actively involving students in civics education. Award applications for 2026 will be posted on February 28, and are due March 31. The honorees will be announced on May 1 to correspond with Law Day. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/chief-justice-honors-riversides-norte-vista-high-school-excellence-civics Chief Justice Honors Riverside’s Norte Vista High School for Excellence in CivicsMartin.Novitski Tue, 09/23/2025 - 16:42 Feature During Constitution Week, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero visited Norte Vista High School in Riverside County to present the 2025 Civic Learning Award of Excellence. The Civic Learning Award, now in its twelfth year, is co-sponsored by the Chief Justice and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.  Schools awarded at this top level receive their award in person from the Chief Justice. Honorees are invited to a larger awards celebration organized by the California Department of Education at the end of the school year. As one of three visits planned for Constitution Month, Norte Vista offered guests a show-and-tell featuring presentations about student-initiated community service projects created by the students. Students described programs like Bilingual Academic Tutor Support (BATS), which pairs high school students with nearby elementary students struggling to learn English. They showcased their Freezer Meals program, which provides nutritious frozen meals for families in need. The school is also a Riverside County voting site, hosting poll worker training and elections with student staff. In 2024, over 100 students worked the polls, and the school reported its highest voter turnout in eight election cycles. In total, students perform nearly 20,000 service hours each year. “I reviewed Norte Vista’s application and was deeply impressed,” said Chief Justice Guerrero. “But hearing directly from the students about what these opportunities mean to them—that’s what is truly inspiring. It’s why, year after year, we continue to sponsor this awards program. We want to celebrate schools that support their students and help them make a difference in their communities.” Norte Vista High School has received the Civic Learning Award at various levels every year since 2022. Each year, teacher Amanda Bush has submitted details outlining the six proven practices for effective civic learning. This year, evidence that included the measured impact and student leadership brought them the highest honor. Further, each example came back to the support of Principal Jason Marquez. “There’s no one certain student who is asked to serve,” Bush said.  “We’re a community that is not often asked to serve, because we’re a community that needs a lot. But we are also a community that provides a lot.” Dr. Reggie Thompkins, Alvord Unified School District Superintendent lauded their efforts, and the fact that the programs are run by the students themselves. “They stepped up without anyone telling them what to do,” he said. “They stepped up because they want to do something for the betterment of others.” The Chief Justice was accompanied by jurists from the Riverside County Superior Court. Administrative Presiding Justice Judith McConnell was also there to meet and talk with students and present the award. “By being here in person, it helps us think creatively about how to connect the courts as support agents in the community,” said Justice McConnell, who has led of the Chief Justice’s Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative for more than a decade. “And I’m thoroughly impressed with the coordination and support demonstrated today, it is quite remarkable. They truly deserve this top honor.” As Chief Justice Guerrero presented the Civic Learning Award of Excellence, she thanked the students for their leadership. “You’re the heart of these programs,” she said. “It’s your voices and your leadership that keep our democracy strong.” A list of all schools honored since 2013 is available on the Chief Justice's Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative website powerofdemocracy.org. Applications are posted in February and announced on Law Day, May 1. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-chief-justice-delivers-2025-state-judiciary-address California Chief Justice Delivers 2025 State of the Judiciary AddressCorren, Blaine Tue, 03/18/2025 - 09:47 News Release SACRAMENTO—Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero today delivered the 2025 State of the Judiciary address to the California Legislature. A transcript of her remarks is below, and an archived webcast of the address is available on the California Courts YouTube channel. Watch               Thank you, Senate President Pro Tem McGuire, Speaker Rivas, distinguished statewide constitutional officers and guests, and, of course, Governor Newsom. Thank you for the opportunity to deliver my State of the Judiciary Address to a joint session of the California State Legislature. I am very proud to be joined once again by my colleagues from the California Supreme Court (and our CEO and court staff); justices, judges, and court executives from local courts around the state; members of the Judicial Council; the California Judges Association; the Bench Bar Coalition; and our justice system stakeholders and partners. Much has happened since I addressed you last year. I decided to start with an understatement. In March of last year, I emphasized the Judicial Branch’s priority with respect to advocating for a stable budget that the courts can count on to make public access to justice a reality in all 58 counties. In May, we were faced with $97 million in reductions at the trial court level and the prospect of up to 7.95% reductions for other parts of the Judicial Branch. I expressed the Judicial Branch’s commitment to doing our part to address the State Budget deficit, while working diligently to mitigate and manage the impacts to the courts and to the public of this current fiscal year’s budget cuts. It was definitely challenging—our courts found efficiencies but also had to implement some tough solutions. Necessary actions included closing courtrooms and courthouses, implementing some form of furloughs, and reducing hours for self-help and clerk’s office services. But we appreciated the opportunity to maintain an ongoing dialogue with our sister branches of government regarding the details of our budget. And I am pleased to say that following the Governor’s Proposed Budget in January of this year, courts have reported that the partially restored funding should help by: Reducing hiring freezes and delays;   Reducing service impacts; and   Preventing, eliminating, or scaling back on planned furloughs. Unfortunately, much uncertainty remains. Nonetheless, we remain committed to working with the Governor’s administration and the Legislature in the coming months as plans for the Budget Act are finalized. We know and appreciate that you all face hard choices and that you weigh competing demands for scarce resources as you review the Proposed Budget. It is our hope that you will continue to keep in mind the fundamental reason we seek our share of the budget. The mission, as you heard, of the Judicial Branch is to resolve disputes, and to interpret and apply the law consistently, impartially, and independently to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions, in a fair, accessible, effective, and efficient manner. We need funding to properly fulfill this solemn responsibility— as a coequal branch of government—to safeguard the constitutional rights and liberties of all Californians. In my third year as Chief Justice, I’m energized to be driving forward with the conviction of my own sworn oath to protect and defend the constitutions—guided, as all of our judges are, by a dedication to the rule of law, and inspired by the desire to give back, to deliver equal access to justice for all Californians. We, of course, do not do our work on behalf of the public alone. I want to emphasize how important it is that all three branches of government in California are here together today. This reflects our commitment to work collaboratively, with civility, and with mutual respect, on behalf of the people that we serve. Our relationships are informed by an understanding of our distinct roles and duties, protected by the checks and balances inherent in our democratic system of government, and strengthened by our personal commitment to the rule of law. I know that you share that commitment. I’ve had the privilege of administering oaths of office to many public servants—including many of you here today. The oaths we take represent the key pillars of our constitutional democracy—as we affirm to support and to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California. This foundation supports a healthy climate of productive public discourse, and thoughtful and thorough deliberation on issues that impact our state, our counties, our communities, our families, and others. Because of this foundation of justice, no one is above the law, no one is outside of the law, and no one is excluded from its rights and protections. And so with these principles in mind, I stand here proud to say that the state of the judiciary remains strong, and that we are ready, willing, and able to uphold our responsibilities and play our role to benefit the people who we serve in California. I also spoke last year of three-branch solutions. I believe that concept continues to be of utmost importance. That is why I encouraged judges throughout the state to engage with their local senators and assemblymembers to foster communication between our two branches. And I continue to encourage all of you to meet with court leadership and staff in your home districts and to experience firsthand the services and access they provide to all of your constituents. Since my address last year, at least 19 legislators spent time visiting nine local trial courts in their districts. I was pleased to be joined by President Pro Tem McGuire on a visit to the Superior Court of Mendocino County, and by Speaker Rivas on a visit to the Superior Court of Monterey County last year. These visits create a greater understanding of the operational challenges facing courts and how courts focus on efficiencies and innovations and efficiencies to better serve the public. You will see firsthand the great benefits of remote proceedings. You didn’t think I’d get through this without mentioning remote proceedings. Each business day, more than 6,500 remote hearings, civil and criminal, take place in our courts, saving court users an estimated 1.5 million trips to courthouses annually. Remote proceedings have been universally praised by both court staff and court users—as both time and cost savers—and most importantly, because the option to appear remotely gives litigants a choice about how they access their court system. I want to acknowledge and thank you for listening to our pleas for an extension of remote proceedings. Through budget trailer bills, we now have statutory authorization for criminal and civil remote proceedings until January 1, 2027. Through your visits to our courts, you will also see and hear from the dedicated judges, court executive officers, attorneys, and staff who help make up the face of the judiciary. They are talented, hard-working, dedicated public servants who constantly respond to increasing workload demands. And I am proud to serve alongside of them. Currently, we have about 67 judicial vacancies. I had to update the number since yesterday. We are grateful to the Governor and his Judicial Appointments Secretary for their ongoing work to fill these vacancies. As was recently reported, with nearly two years left in his term, Governor Newsom has already appointed 586 judges—including 131 in 2024—putting him on track to surpass prior administrations. We are all beneficiaries of Governor Newsom’s commitment to identifying and appointing excellent judges and leaving a lasting imprint on the state judiciary. Thank you Governor. I also would like to commend the proposal to provide long-overdue funding to support the Court-Appointed Counsel Programs for our Courts of Appeal and our California Supreme Court. They support an important need to provide effective, efficient, and experienced counsel for appellants with death judgments and indigent defendants on appeal. This funding is critical to attract and retain qualified counsel and to help rebuild the statewide panel of attorneys whose work is fundamental to the effective administration of justice. As with all the funding we receive, we recognize that we must be good stewards of the resources we seek. As part of our role in three branch solutions, I am committed to transparency and accountability with the public funds allocated to the Judicial Branch. Courts are enhancing caseflow management and case resolution for the workload reporting that we provide to you. At our April Judicial Council meeting, we will receive a report on our weighted caseload model—this helps us to accurately assess resource needs and equitably allocate the resources you provide. We seek to provide improved data collection and analysis that prioritizes actual level of effort and time to resolve cases over basic raw filings data. We know that raw filings fell during the pandemic, and that filings are now rising once again. But even more significantly—the complexity of the workload for courts has exponentially increased. We measure workloads using a “caseweight” methodology developed by the National Center for State Courts, and used in at least 30 other states, which allows us to consider both case volume and case complexity. For example, between 2017 and 2025, preliminary data shows that caseweights have risen 54% for felonies, 95% for juvenile cases, and 26% for conservatorship and guardianship proceedings. These are dramatic, fundamental shift that impacts our work. The law evolves each year as your branch identifies important policy issues that must be addressed—ranging from important issues such as various ameliorative laws touching upon important issues such as post-judgement resentencing, Juvenile Justice Diversion, Collaborative Justice, and the Racial Justice Act—as well as measures reflecting the will of the people through ballot measures such as Prop 36. These and other factors all affect the courts’ case volume, mix, and complexity and increases their workload. I look forward to providing the results of our Resource Assessment Study with you soon. As we update and refine our post-pandemic data to establish solid baselines for our workload, resources, and judicial needs, we will continue to advocate for judgeships in those counties that need it the most, including San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. And we will continue to focus on enhancing education and training for all of our judicial officers—so that we can deliver the highest quality of justice and service to the public—and to maintain the highest standards of professionalism, ethics, and performance. We also continue to focus on other key issues and programs of mutual interest and concern. And I’d like to touch on a few of those now. Since I delivered my last State of the Judiciary, our trial courts in all 58 counties have now implemented the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act. Under the CARE Act, the courts continue to collaborate with the California Health and Human Services Agency to deliver mental health treatment, housing support, and other services through a civil court process for persons with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders who often experience homelessness or incarceration without treatment.   As of February 21, courts have received 1,258 CARE Act petitions and held 2,092 hearings. The numbers continue to improve. And the numbers do not tell the full story. Behind the metrics are real people, real individuals, families, and communities benefitting from the act.   And the holistic approach of unifying and coordinating public services, as has been done with our Collaborative Justice Courts, yields other benefits—because there are some who might not be eligible for the CARE Act who are nonetheless receiving referrals to other services to meet their specific needs. Through these efforts, we are seeing significant improvement in assisting Californians struggling with mental health issues. When I spoke with you last year, I also stated that our court system must address the many issues presented by the developing field of artificial intelligence in a deliberative fashion. Since then, I appointed a task force led by Administrative Presiding Justice Brad Hill, who will continue to work with Administrative Presiding Justice Mary Greenwood and Judge Arturo Castro, as well as members of the Judicial Council on this ever-evolving issue.   The task force has developed a Model Use Policy that outlines the guardrails for safely using generative AI. They have just circulated a draft Rule of Court for public comment and this we hope will ensure that court users are protected as the branch begins to implement generative AI—and the Judicial Council will vote on a recommended rule later this year. The task force has also developed guidance for judges using generative AI in their adjudicative role. Stay tuned as this issue continues to evolve. Through funding you provided, we also launched the California Court Interpreter Workforce Pilot Program this fiscal year. The program covers training costs and exam fees for aspiring court interpreters with a commitment to work for the courts for at least three years after they pass all required exams.   19 courts are participating. More than 1,000 applications have been received from interested candidates. 126 candidates are in the program currently, and the application cycle opens again this month.   Because this is a five-year pilot, we believe that the program will help address the growing need for qualified interpreters to serve California court users with limited-English proficiency. Next, the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs support trained volunteers appointed by a judicial officer to advocate for children who are under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court. Volunteers spend time with children, monitoring their service needs, and provide child-focused recommendations to the court based on the best interest of the child.   We have forty-five CASA programs in 52 counties; they serve 10,600 children with 7,400 trained volunteers, and we appreciate your ongoing support of this program. The council and the courts are also collaborating with the California Department of Social Services to focus on a “Kin-First” Culture—the term used to describe a system that prioritizes placing children with their extended family network. These efforts are ongoing in Santa Cruz, Sacramento, Solano, and Kern Counties. And in San Diego County, this approach has seen an increase of 10% in children being safely placed with family. And through our Judicial Branch Facilities Program, we seek to design and construct functional, economical, and secure contemporary court facilities for all of these court users and members of their local communities. With your support, in the past year, the Judicial Council has successfully completed two new public buildings—in Shasta County and Riverside County. Construction continues on three projects anticipated to be completed this year, and one in 2026. And in light of recent attacks and threats to courthouses, we continue to evaluate existing facilities to identify physical security improvements to make those courthouses safer for the public, judicial officers and court staff, and justice system partners. Through all of these changes and improvements, the Judicial Branch is demonstrating its ability to play our role in effectively and efficiently serving the people of California. Sometimes we face significant challenges along the way. The recent administration of the California Bar Exam comes to mind. As you know, the California Supreme Court and the Legislature share an important partnership concerning oversight of the State Bar, with the court managing licensing and disciplinary functions and the Legislature setting the attorney licensing fee and auditing the bar’s governance and finances. Over the past three years, in light of high-profile failures to address attorney misconduct, we both have implemented reforms to address attorney accountability and to improve the State Bar’s operations. The court has implemented conflict-of-interest screening for key positions within the State Bar, implemented transparency measures to ensure that seated bar leaders annually disclose conflicts of interest, and approved a new rule of professional conduct that requires attorneys to report other attorneys for serious acts of misconduct. And the Legislature undertook its important role in auditing the agency’s disciplinary system and finances, updating the agency’s disqualification standards, and creating a diversion program for lesser violations of attorney misconduct. And this partnership will continue as we investigate the failures surrounding the administration of the bar exam last month. We understand the high stakes that are involved—for students who want to pursue a career and their dream of joining the legal profession, for those who hope to devote their talent and skills to helping others, for those who need the financial stability and independence that will come from jobs that depend on their ability to pass the exam. It is literally life-changing for many students. The additional stress, frustration, and anxiety faced by some examinees is inexcusable. For all those who had to endure these failures, I want to assure you that our court will exercise its plenary authority to implement appropriate remedies to help mitigate the harm. In response to these unfortunate circumstances, the court plans to enhance oversight over admissions, including the role of the Committee of Bar Examiners, to ensure high standards and improve the administration of future bar exams. Even before the founding of our State Bar, the court depended on the Committee of Bar Examiners to set high standards for entrance into the practice of law. But in recent years, the examiners’ role has been diminished. I intend to explore restoring the examiners’ importance in these matters by increasing their oversight of the admissions process, including its budget and the administration of the bar exam. Just as we trust the examiners to develop and enforce high standards to become an attorney, we should also entrust them to develop and enforce high standards to determine whether a vendor can administer an online bar exam without incident. Our applicants deserve a rigorous and thoughtful process for ensuring that they sit for an exam that fairly measures their legal skills. We hope that these students who pass the bar will all succeed, and as they do so, we hope they will commit to providing pro bono services to the most vulnerable among us. Nonprofits and pro bono providers can help ensure that low-income Californians have access to essential civil legal services. Like all pro bono providers, they should have our support and the freedom to represent those in need of their legal services, without fear of retribution or unwarranted criticism which threatens to have a chilling effect on the nature of the work they are willing to undertake. I would also like to address the considerable stress, anxiety, and confusion surrounding the issue of immigration policies and enforcement as they relate to our courts. The federal government, of course, has the right and obligation to do its job but it cannot (consistent with the Tenth Amendment) compel states to enforce federal immigration law. You have passed laws making this clear, including SB 54 regarding the sharing of certain information with immigration officials, and AB 668 which codifies the common law privilege against civil arrests in a courthouses in California without a judicial warrant. These laws have been upheld against various challenges. And in fact, the federal government’s own guidance document recognizes these important limitations—specifying such civil immigration enforcement actions should not occur in jurisdictions like California which prevent it. None of this means state officials or judicial officers have any intent to violate federal laws that prevent anyone from “conceal[ing], harbor[ing], or shield[ing] from detection” those who are in our country illegally, particularly those who commit violent felonies. Rather, we can all perform our independent obligations consistent with our constitutional mandates in support of the rule of law. The federal government can focus on federal immigration enforcement within the confines of the constitution; local officials can focus on local public safety; and our courts can focus on providing access to justice to every single person who comes before us. It is within our purview to ensure that all members of the public can freely access our state courts, to safeguard individual rights, and to promote the fair and timely administration of justice; we will safeguard our authority and responsibility to do so. So I will close with the same general thoughts I opened with this year: The Judicial Branch remains steadfast in its commitment to provide fair and impartial justice in accordance with our constitutional obligations. And as we do so—whether we are talking about our financial operations, key issues and programs of mutual interest, or broader issues of public concern—I look forward with energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to working collaboratively with you as we continue to serve the public. Thank you for your attention. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/year-review-california-supreme-court-4 Year in Review: California Supreme CourtBalassone, Merrill Wed, 10/02/2024 - 09:00 News Release While the prior court year was a time of transition for the California Supreme Court, in which Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero assumed leadership of the judicial branch and Associate Justice Kelli Evans joined the court, the 2023–2024 court year reflected stability and focus on the work of the court. During the 2023–2024 court year, in addition to resolving thousands of routine filings, the court issued written opinions grappling with legal issues arising out of voter initiative measures, the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental law, and equal protection, among other subjects. “I am proud of the work of the court, and I want to thank my fellow justices and court staff for their deep commitment to fairness, equality, and access to justice.  I look forward to continuing our work on behalf of all Californians,” said Chief Justice Guerrero. The Work of the Court The court issued 58 written majority opinions during the September 2023–August 2024 court year (see chart and “High-Profile Cases” below). The court received 5,013 filings, including 3,079 petitions for review, and resolved 4,784 filings, including 3,039 petitions for review. Back on the Road The court in December marked its return to hearing oral argument in Los Angeles, a tradition put on hold for nearly four years during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court’s tradition of hearing oral argument in Los Angeles—as one of three recurring locations for oral argument, along with Sacramento and San Francisco—dates to 1878. The court also has resumed its practice of conducting special oral argument sessions in locations across the state, with the October 2024 oral argument to take place in Fresno. These special sessions provide students and other members of the public with opportunities to witness oral argument at nearby venues. The California Supreme Court returned to hearing oral argument in Los Angeles last December. Strengthening State Bar Protections The court also approved measures to further guard against conflicts of interest involving members of the State Bar Board of Trustees and the State Bar Court. In November, the court authorized changes to rules 9.11 and 9.90 of the California Rules of Court to ensure that candidates for the Board of Trustees and the State Bar Court, the latter of which rules on attorney disciplinary matters, are screened for actual and potential conflicts of interest. Relatedly, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero approved an updated and amended conflict of interest code for the Board of Trustees. In Memoriam: Associate Justice Edward A. Panelli Former Associate Justice Edward A. Panelli died in July at age 92. Justice Panelli was an associate justice on the court from 1985 to 1994, after previously serving as a judge at the Santa Clara County Superior Court, as an associate justice at the First District Court of Appeal, and as presiding justice at the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Justice Panelli was a mentor to many attorneys, including several future justices and judges, during his long career as a practitioner, judge, mediator, and instructor. The court will conduct an in memoriam session at a future oral argument to recognize Justice Panelli and his contributions to California law. High-Profile Cases   Castellanos v. State of California involved a challenge to Proposition 22, a voter initiative passed in 2020. The court unanimously decided that a provision within this measure that classifies drivers for app-based transportation or delivery companies as independent contractors rather than employees if certain conditions are met does not conflict with the Legislature’s plenary authority under the state constitution “to create, and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation, by appropriate legislation.” The court reasoned that the constitution’s grant of authority to the Legislature “does not preclude the electorate from exercising its initiative power to legislate on matters affecting workers’ compensation.” In Legislature v. Weber, the court considered whether a ballot proposition seeking to change the California Constitution could properly be placed before the voters by a citizen’s initiative. Among other things, the proposition at issue would have prohibited the Legislature from raising taxes without voter approval and restricted the ability of state and local governments to delegate fee-setting authority to their executive or administrative officers. The court held that the ballot proposition could not be placed before voters by citizen’s initiative, but rather had to follow the procedures for a constitutional revision, because the proposition’s proposed changes “operate together to fundamentally rework the fiscal underpinnings of our government at every level” and would therefore “substantially alter our framework of government.” In Another Planet Entertainment v. Vigilant Insurance Co., the court agreed with “the vast majority of courts nationwide” and rejected a business’s attempt to claim insurance coverage for “direct physical loss or damage to property” based on allegations that the presence of the COVID-19 virus led to pandemic-era business closures. The court held that “direct physical loss or damage to property requires a distinct, demonstrable physical alteration to property,” with the mere presence of the COVID-19 virus not meeting that standard. By a 5-2 vote, the court ruled in People v. Hardin that denying youth offender parole hearings to young adults convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole did not violate equal protection. While leaving open “the possibility of other as-applied challenges to the statute,” the majority in Hardin determined that the defendant had “not demonstrated that the Legislature acted irrationally in declining to grant the possibility of parole to young adult offenders convicted of special circumstance murder, even as it has granted youth offender hearings to young adults convicted of other offenses.” The court also clarified in Hardin how an equal protection analysis should proceed, explaining that “when plaintiffs challenge laws drawing distinctions between identifiable groups or classes of persons, on the basis that the distinctions drawn are inconsistent with equal protection, courts no longer need to ask at the threshold whether the two groups are similarly situated for purposes of the law in question. The only pertinent inquiry is whether the challenged difference in treatment is adequately justified under the applicable standard of review.” In re Dezi C., also decided by a 5-2 vote, resolved a split of authority among Courts of Appeal regarding a recurring issue in juvenile dependency matters. Addressing how reviewing courts should approach a child welfare agency’s failure to undertake an adequate inquiry under the California Indian Child Welfare Act into whether a child is, or may be, an Indian child, the majority concluded that “[w]hen there is an inadequate inquiry and the record is underdeveloped, it is impossible for reviewing courts to assess prejudice.” The majority therefore held that an inadequate “inquiry requires conditional reversal of the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights with directions to the agency to conduct an adequate inquiry, supported by record documentation.” The court considered the impact of a new statute on a University of California, Berkeley housing project and development plan in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. The Regents of the University of California. In 2023, the Legislature passed a law specifying “noise generated by project occupants and their guests” did not constitute “a significant effect on the environment for residential projects” under the California Environmental Quality Act. In light of the new law, the court concluded that an environmental impact report was not inadequate for having failed to study the potential noisiness of future students at the university in connection with the housing project and the development plan. Summary of Key Court Year Statistics [September 1, 2023 – August 31, 2024] (pdf) Action/Category Number Opinions 58 Civil Cases 32 Criminal Cases 21 Death Penalty Cases 5 Filings 5,013 Petitions for Review 3,079                                 Civil Appeals & Writs 1,011                          Criminal Appeals & Writs 2,062                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 6 Original Proceedings 1,934                        Civil Writs & Other Matters 298                 Criminal Writs & Other Matters 906                                 Executive Clemency 9                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 4                 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus 5                                      State Bar Matters 712 Dispositions 4,784 Petitions for Review 3,039                                 Civil Appeals & Writs 1,024                          Criminal Appeals & Writs 2,007                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 8 Original Proceedings 1,745                        Civil Writs & Other Matters 275                 Criminal Writs & Other Matters 802                                 Executive Clemency 2                 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus 0 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus [Transferred] 1                                      State Bar Matters 665 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Orders to Show Cause 0 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Published 1 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished 7 https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-chief-justice-delivers-2024-state-judiciary-address California Chief Justice Delivers 2024 State of the Judiciary AddressCorren, Blaine Tue, 03/19/2024 - 16:14 News Release SACRAMENTO—Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero today delivered the 2024 State of the Judiciary address to the California Legislature. The transcript of her remarks as delivered is below. Watch Image   Thank you, Senate President Pro Tem McGuire, Speaker Rivas, distinguished statewide constitutional officers and guests, and, of course, Governor Newsom. Thank you for the opportunity to deliver my State of the Judiciary Address to a joint session of the California Legislature, this time from your other house—the State Assembly. I guess you can say this is not my first rodeo! Although it looks much different than the ones I was used to growing up. I join you today in the second year of my 12-year term of office, representing a judiciary that is strong and resilient—one that is committed to serving all the people of California; enhancing access to justice; and protecting the rule of law in our constitutional democracy. I also join you today as no longer the newest leader of a state branch of government—congratulations to Speaker Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem McGuire who you recently welcomed to their new positions. And theirs, like mine, was a smooth transition of leadership that enables us to continue to pursue the objectives and values of our respective branches of government. Our presence here together today demonstrates that good government does work, that collaboration and cooperation, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to public service can deliver three-branch solutions to benefit all Californians. That is why I remain optimistic for the judicial branch and for our state. I am very proud to be joined here today by my colleagues on the California Supreme Court (our court executive officer and our court staff); judges, justices, and court executives from local courts throughout the state; the Judicial Council; the California Judges Association; the Bench Bar Coalition; and our justice system partners and stakeholders. Through this last year of listening to them, deliberating with them, seeking solutions with them, and striving to improve the administration of justice, they have only grown in my esteem. Today is a school day, so my biggest supporter, my husband Joe, and our two greatest sources of pride, our two sons Anthony and Christopher, are watching remotely. Or they said they would try. I'll quiz them later. When I addressed you last year, my focus was on the continuity of branch operations in a year of transition. And so now, I would like to update you on some of the priorities that I mentioned last year. First—Safeguarding and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary. Earlier this month we opened applications for this year’s Civic Learning Awards for California public schools—co-sponsored by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. Since the awards were first presented in 2012, we have recognized 518 public schools of all grade levels throughout California for advancing civic education. Through our Judges in the Classroom program, last year we scheduled 230 visits by judges to schools across the state, both in-person and remotely. I’ve participated in this program myself, and can tell you first-hand, that it’s a truly rewarding experience for the judges, teachers, and students. Civic learning teaches students about their democracy and develops skills for their future lives—such as critical thinking and problem solving; it teaches them how to be engaged, to communicate and collaborate with one another, and to demonstrate creativity, initiative, and innovation. And it promotes academic achievement—helping students remain involved and committed to ongoing learning. Recently, I announced the next phase of our Power of Democracy (POD) Civic Learning Initiative. This effort will be led by what I like to call civic-learning pioneer and stalwart Administrative Presiding Justice Judith McConnell of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, together with Judge Julia Alloggiamento who has also been very active in this area with the Santa Clara Superior Court. The vision of the initiative is to expand civic learning about our three branches of government, but I confess, with a focus on the judicial branch, in every district, in every school, for every child in California. We want all kids sitting in the classrooms today to be actively engaged in our democracy. Through these programs I believe that not only will it enhance the confidence in the judiciary, but in our government as a whole. The next priority on which I want to update you is our ongoing work to increase access to justice. And that includes increasing access through the use of technology. In response to the judicial branch’s concerns about fines and fees creating a debtor’s prison for low-income Californians who are struggling with debt from traffic and other infraction violations, we launched an Ability to Pay pilot project (known as MyCitations). This was in April 2019 with five superior courts partnering with the Judicial Council. The online tool offers low-income drivers an easy way to request a lower penalty, a payment plan, or community service. An initial grant from the U.S. Department of Justice was enhanced by all of you to fund this. MyCitations also enables Californians to interact with the court in a more efficient way. We have a new module allows litigants to contest eligible traffic citations by submitting a written statement and uploading their evidence online, saving them trips to the court. And new languages have also been added to the English and Spanish, including Chinese and Vietnamese so far. Through the end of 2023, more than 128,000 ability-to-pay requests have been submitted by over 91,000 Californians—with outstanding fines and fees being reduced by more than half—from $71 million to $34.3 million. I think it's important to keep in mind the demographics of the people that we're helping with these programs. Nearly 47% of court users accessing the tool reported that they receive public benefits. Over 89% reported incomes at or below 250% of the federal poverty level. And the results of the pilot program are promising. They demonstrated that cases that were granted a reduction through this tool had a 61% success rate for full repayment. I am pleased to say the 43 courts who have already deployed the program so far will soon be joined by the 15 remaining courts to achieve full deployment this year. The third priority I want to report on is Increasing transparency, improving efficiencies as was mentioned, and increasing productivity without sacrificing quality. Caseflow management is an important process in meeting these objectives and providing timely access to justice. For the California Supreme Court, we've instituted internal targets for our court to meet. Our annual number of opinions has trended up, and we're also working our way through some important landmark new laws, such as the Racial Justice Act, which is impacting our workflow. The Courts of Appeal statewide have implemented a monitoring system to manage appellate caseload inequities and ensure that they too are promptly resolving cases.  Caseflow management and time to disposition is also an important tool for our trial courts. Data management and analytics help them to manage caseloads, provide interpreter coverage, and make jury duty more efficient--something my husband reminded me of that's important when he served recently. It also informs how they can work best with our justice system partners. From the clerk’s window to final dispositions—and everywhere in between—caseflow management is critical for the public we serve with the resources that you provide. And please keep providing them. The resources you provide are of course crucial—I would next like to touch upon our priority with respect to advocating for a stable budget that the judicial branch can count on to make public access to justice a reality for all 58 counties. For this budget year, I am grateful for Governor Newsom’s continued support of our mission to advance access to justice and for protecting essential funding for critical programs and services. Thank you. And yes, we know that during these challenging budget times, that along with the rest of state government, the judicial branch must be part of the solution to close the statewide budget deficit. We are committed to working with the Governor’s administration and with the Legislature in the coming months as plans for the Budget Act are finalized. This goal is directly reflected in what we call the Strategic Plan for California’s Judicial Branch. For me planning is an important discipline. I think anyone who knows me knows that I like structure and I like rules. The Strategic Plan provides this for the judicial branch. It's the foundational document for us. Since the first strategic plan was developed in 1992, the process has served to articulate our mission and direction, set our governance structures and priorities, and helped us to navigate some of the most significant reforms, improvements, and challenges in the history of California’s court system. At periodic intervals we've updated our long-term goals as California and the needs of its residents have evolved. Most recently, in December 2022, the Judicial Council amended our number one strategic goal of “Access, Fairness, and Diversity,” to add “Inclusion.” Although this may seem like a small change, as one of our council members shared at the time, “As important as diversity is, if you’re not included, it doesn’t matter.” We saw this as an opportunity to speak out louder and make more explicit the branch’s commitment to an inclusive court system in which all individuals are—and feel—respected and engaged, and their contributions are valued. And this first goal guides all facets of the Judicial Council’s review, analysis, and deliberations. We have one new member on the Judicial Council: I am very pleased to be joined here today, during Women’s History Month, by the council’s new Administrative Director—Shelley Curran. Shelley is the first woman to hold this permanent leadership role at the council, and the first openly LGBTQ+ person to hold this statewide office. Shelley joined the council from the Legislature, where she was principal consultant to two successive California Senate Presidents pro Tempore. Addressing the council following its vote to confirm her appointment, Shelley shared her philosophy about public service and working in government. I’m sure it will resonate strongly with you, just as it did with me. She shared that she subscribes to the World War II meaning of the phrase “good enough for government work”—when that meant as she describes it: “the best, the highest standards, the benchmark for which to strive.” Those same principles guide us in implementing the Judicial Council’s other strategic goals for the branch. One goal has particular salience these days: Modernization of Management and Administration. With respect to this goal—some modernization is voluntary. Some is disruptive and thrust upon us. You can guess where AI falls in that spectrum. Either way, change is the inevitable result. I don't recommend that anyone shout into their phones, “Win my case!” or “Write my brief!” But society, government, and, therefore, our court system must address the many issues and questions presented by the developing field of artificial intelligence. We must do this in a careful and deliberative fashion. I have asked Administrative Presiding Justice Mary Greenwood and Judge Arturo Castro to help lead the branch’s efforts to identify the foundational questions that must be asked as we consider the opportunities and challenges that are associated with AI. Their efforts will facilitate how we consider what might be appropriate uses of AI in relation to the judiciary with the guiding principle of safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process. Another issue of focus and serious concern to us all is climate change and its associated impacts. The judicial branch’s early education focus on law and process related to the California Environmental Quality Act. But it's now expanded to include environmental science and the related and often highly complex litigation issues that judges are increasingly being asked to address. With the support of the Legislature, we're embarking on a more comprehensive water and environmental law education focus. The judicial branch is playing its part and supporting action and solutions for our state in these important areas and through other modernization and service initiatives. No discussion of modernization is complete without a discussion of remote technology. You knew it was coming. Court users themselves are choosing to access these new services and tools—including 24/7 eFiling, access to online records and research, self-help resources, and remote appearances. I want you to all know accessing court services remotely works! We know this from court users and staff alike. A recent Judicial Council report on this issue showed us that: Approximately 150,000 remote civil proceedings are conducted statewide each month; More than 90% of court users and 98% of court staff reported positive experiences; and Very few technical issues were reported. As always, more work remains to be done. But we can build on these successes. Addressing remote access is one example of effective three- branch solutions to better serve the state. Implementation of the CARE Act, of course, is yet another example of the three-branch solution model working successfully. To date, we have eight courts that have implemented the new CARE Court program to help deliver mental health treatment and support services to the most vulnerable Californians. The remaining 50 counties will implement CARE courts by December 1st of this year. Since the program was launched in October 2023, we are already seeing significant promise in assisting people with mental health issues. Whether these cases are filed by concerned family members or directly by those who need the services (with help from a public defender), we look forward to continuing our commitment to this important program and the people it serves who so desperately need assistance. Another pressing issue that deserves our attention is the ability to serve litigants by being able to provide them with a verbatim record of their court proceedings. Right now, that is not happening in too many cases. In just a three-month period between July 1 and September 30, of last year, nearly 40% of family, probate, and unlimited civil hearings in California had no verbatim record (133,000 hearings in just three months). We all want and need more licensed court reporters to be trained, certified, and hired, and the Judicial Council and the courts are doing all that we feasibly can to support that goal, including signing bonuses, retention bonuses, longevity bonuses, increased salary ranges, finder’s fees, and student loan or tuition reimbursement incentives. But the number of certified court reporters continues to decline and it threatens access to justice—especially for vulnerable Californians. As our court explained in 2018 in an opinion that we issued, “the absence of a verbatim record of trial court proceedings will often have a devastating effect on a litigant’s ability to have an appeal . . . decided on the merits.” These devastating effects are already being felt by far too many court users. I look forward to working with you all to find practical solutions to this ongoing issue. The final strategic goal for the judicial branch that I want to raise with you is the goal of Independence and Accountability. This goal encompasses quite a bit. It encompasses the independence of the judiciary as a separate, and co-equal branch of government, and the independence of judicial decision-making in order to preserve the rule of law and ensure the fair, impartial, and efficient delivery of justice. It also involves maintaining the highest standards of accountability for the use of public resources and adherence to statutory and constitutional mandates. There is a necessary balance between impartiality, transparency, and accountability. We embrace our obligation to describe our rulings. But what concerns me are unnecessary and unproductive partisan attacks on court decisions. I am concerned that these trends—and a decline in civil discourse—can negatively impact the public’s trust and confidence in our democratic institutions. We must safeguard the integrity of the court and our decision-making. Our judiciary is non-partisan and adheres to the rule of law—we do not make public policy. We embrace the robust ethics standards we have in place with supportive training and guidance. We also have misconduct oversight from an independent state agency. We believe in the value of precedent. And I believe that how courts interpret the law and adjudicate cases shouldn’t change dramatically when the members of a court change. And I will say again, as I did last year, that I am privileged to serve on one of the most talented and diverse high courts in the nation—a collegial bench with a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. There have been a number of studies on our Supreme Court this past year, and one reported that we had the highest unanimity rate in the court’s recent history—94%. I don't know if you should applaud, but I will say that is not because we don’t value dissent or share one another's opinions—my colleagues are not shy! I think that statistic may change at some point. But what remains constant is our respect for the rule of law, precedent, and legislative intent; we respect each other’s points of view, and the process of deliberating and crafting an opinion. And we respect one another. The California Supreme Court has a long history of setting precedents in areas relating to consumer protection, criminal justice, civil liberties, and racial integration. The importance of our work is not always limited to our cases alone. In 2020 during a turbulent summer for our nation, my colleagues on the court issued a statement on equality and inclusion that still resonates today—I'd like to share some of that with you. They wrote: "… Each of us has a duty to recognize there is much unfinished and essential work that must be done to make equality and inclusion an everyday reality for all… … We state clearly and without equivocation that we condemn racism in all its forms: conscious, unconscious, institutional, structural, historic, and continuing… … Each member of this court, along with the court as a whole, embraces this obligation. As members of the legal profession sworn to uphold our fundamental constitutional values, we will not and must not rest until the promise of equal justice under law is, for all our people, a living truth.” I can tell you that those same sentiments are shared by judicial officers throughout the state. I think you can see why I am proud to serve on this court and with my judicial branch colleagues—all 2,000 of them and 18,000 court professionals—the Judicial Council and the professional staff of the council, and our justice system partners. And I look forward to working with each of you on future initiatives, and the promise of equal justice under the law for all Californians. Thank you. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-chief-justice-helps-dedicate-new-imperial-county-courthouse-el-centro California Chief Justice Helps Dedicate New Imperial County Courthouse in El CentroCorren, Blaine Mon, 12/18/2023 - 15:42 News Release El Centro, Calif.—California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero joined judges, staff, and members of the Imperial County community on Monday to officially commemorate the completion of the new El Centro Courthouse. The courthouse dedication, the first during Chief Justice Guerrero's tenure, held even more significance for the Chief Justice, who was born and raised in the area. "I was shaped by and benefited from all my experiences here and will always be grateful for my teachers, my family, and my lifelong friends who are still part of this wonderful community," Chief Justice Guerrero said. "And so I am humbled and honored to return as California’s Chief Justice, to serve the people of California and to help usher in this new courthouse—a new symbol of justice for the residents of Imperial County." The ceremony also included remarks by the Judicial Council's incoming Administrative Director Shelley Curran, and Imperial County Presiding Judge William D. Quan and Assistant Presiding Judge Marco D. Núñez.  Since the state judicial branch took over responsibility for courthouses in 2002, the judicial branch construction program has completed 34 new courthouse projects and another 19 projects are underway and in various stages. The New El Centro Courthouse will officially open to the public on Jan. 2, 2024. The facility consolidates court services from two other facilities, bringing greater access and efficiency for court users in the area. The new courthouse also provides modern spaces for jury assembly and deliberation, in-custody holding, attorney interview/witness waiting rooms, and a children's waiting room. For more information, visit the California court’s website at www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-imperial.htm. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-revises-conflict-interest-code-state-bar-board-trustees California Supreme Court Revises Conflict of Interest Code for State Bar Board of TrusteesBalassone, Merrill Thu, 08/31/2023 - 12:13 News Release California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero today directed the State Bar of California to further revise its conflict of interest code for the State Bar Board of Trustees to make clearer trustees’ duties regarding disclosure and disqualification. Chief Justice Guerrero submitted the revisions, made in consultation with the California Supreme Court, and directed the State Bar to circulate the amended code for at least 30 days of public comment. The State Bar must then resubmit the proposed amended code with any additional revisions by Oct. 30. In April, Chief Justice Guerrero directed the State Bar to expedite updates to the conflict of interest code governing members of the Board of Trustees. The court said the State Bar’s revised proposal did not comply with the requirements of Government Code section 87309, subdivisions (a) and (b), because it “fails to provide reasonable assurance that all foreseeable potential conflict of interest situations will be disclosed or prevented” and fails to provide the trustees with “a clear and specific statement” of their “duties under the code.” The proposal is one of several other directives from the court to the State Bar, including a rule compelling attorneys to report misconduct by other attorneys; notices to inform clients, the courts, and adverse parties of attorney suspensions; and new rules requiring the screening of candidates for the Board of Trustees and State Bar Court for potential conflicts of interest. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/commission-confirms-appointments-courts-appeal-13 Commission Confirms Appointments to Courts of AppealBalassone, Merrill Fri, 06/23/2023 - 15:22 News Release Public documents on the appointees are available here.  Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, chair of the Commission on Judicial Appointments, announced that the commission today confirmed two nominations to the California Courts of Appeal in San Francisco and San Diego. The nominees were confirmed by unanimous vote of the three-member commission, which includes: Chief Justice Guerrero (Chair); Attorney General Rob Bonta; and Presiding Justice Jim Humes (for the First Appellate District hearing), or Presiding Justice Manuel A. Ramirez (for the Fourth Appellate District hearing). The nominees confirmed were: Judge Danny Chou as associate justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division Five (San Francisco)   Judge David Rubin as an associate justice of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One (San Diego) Appointee BiographiesJudge Danny Chou fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Henry E. Needham. Judge Chou has served as a San Mateo County Superior Court judge since 2018. Judge Chou served as an assistant county counsel at the Santa Clara County Counsel’s Office from 2012 to 2018. He served as chief of complex and special litigation at the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office from 2008 to 2012, where he was chief of appellate litigation from 2006 to 2008. Judge Chou served as a supervising staff attorney at the California Supreme Court from 2005 to 2006, where he was also a judicial staff attorney from 1999 to 2005. He was a staff attorney at the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit from 1998 to 1999, an associate at Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk and Rabkin from 1995 to 1998, and a law clerk for Judge Stanley A. Weigel at the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California from 1994 to 1995. Judge Chou earned a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School. Judge David Rubin fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Cynthia G. Aaron. Judge Rubin has served as a San Diego County Superior Court judge since 2007. Judge Rubin served as a deputy district attorney at the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office from 1987 to 2007. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/chief-justice-guerrero-honors-public-service-recognition-week-may-7-13-2023 Chief Justice Guerrero Honors "Public Service Recognition Week": May 7-13, 2023Balassone, Merrill Mon, 05/08/2023 - 10:28 News Release This week is Public Service Recognition Week. California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero issued the following statement honoring all serving in the California judicial branch: "Having passed my first 100 days in office, I want to express my profound appreciation for the 2,000 judicial officers and 20,000 judicial branch employees who work to ensure all Californians have access to justice. These public servants hear and decide cases. They staff self-help centers for people navigating our courts without the help of an attorney. They ensure our courthouses are safe, secure, and accessible. They help Californians with language barriers access their courts. Their work is integral to protecting and upholding the rule of law—a cornerstone of democracy. Millions of Californians visit our courthouses each year, and our work to expand remote access to our courts has allowed at least 1.5 million people the option to have their cases heard remotely. Millions more connect through our online services each year. Our state’s diversity is a strength, and we work side by side to create an inclusive court system where all participants feel respected and engaged. I thank the public servants of California’s judicial branch for their dedication to our highest goals of access, fairness, diversity, and inclusion." https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/chief-justice-honored-california-latino-legislative-caucus Chief Justice Honored by California Latino Legislative Caucus Balassone, Merrill Wed, 05/03/2023 - 09:24 News Release Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero was honored Tuesday in Sacramento with a Latino Spirit Award, presented yearly by the California Latino Legislative Caucus to honorees who have made "pioneering contributions in their respective fields."  The caucus recognized Chief Justice Guerrero for her achievements in law and public service. She was one of 11 leaders honored for achievements in areas that also included human rights, the arts, and literature. Established in 2002, the awards coincide with the state’s celebration of Cinco de Mayo.     Image Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero accepts a Latino Spirit Award in Sacramento. Image Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero was one of 11 honorees recognized in the Assembly chambers. Nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom in August 2022, and later sworn into office on Jan. 2, 2023, Chief Justice Guerrero made history as the first Latina to serve as California's Chief Justice. When she first joined the California Supreme Court as an associate justice in March 2022, Chief Justice Guerrero was also the first Latina to serve on the state's high court. In her first State of the Judiciary address, Chief Justice Guerrero highlighted her commitment to a more diverse and inclusive judicial branch, as well as technology that helped preserve access to justice for Californians during the pandemic. Chief Justice Guerrero also adopted the Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative and has been active in the “Judges in the Classroom” civics program, which engages schools and encourages students to learn about the judiciary's role. Prior to her elevation to the California Supreme Court, Chief Justice Guerrero served as an associate justice at the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, since December 2017. Before her appellate appointment, she served as a judge at the Superior Court of San Diego County from 2013 to 2017 and was the supervising judge of its Family Law Division in 2017. During her legal career, Chief Justice Guerrero has contributed many hours of volunteer work, including as a member of the Advisory Board of the Immigration Justice Project, which promotes due process and access to justice at all levels of the immigration and appellate court system. As an attorney, she assisted clients on a pro bono basis in immigration matters, including asylum applications and protecting vulnerable families by litigating compliance with fair housing laws. Chief Justice Guerrero is the daughter of Mexican immigrants and was born and raised in California's Imperial Valley. She attended the University of California, Berkeley as an undergraduate and earned a Juris Doctor degree from Stanford Law School.