https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-approves-trial-court-funding-will-help-ensure-access-court-users Judicial Council Approves Trial Court Funding That Will Help Ensure Access for Court UsersCorren, Blaine Fri, 07/17/2026 - 12:54 News Release SAN FRANCISCO—The Judicial Council at its July 17 meeting approved statewide funding for trial court operations included in the most recent state budget signed by Gov. Newsom. The funding for fiscal year 2026–27 includes money for staffing, interpreters, court-appointed dependency counsel, continued implementation of the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, and other costs associated with trial court operations. “These allocations are the primary funding source for the trial courts and are essential to support court operations and sustain critical programs and services for the public,” said Judge Jonathan Conklin, chair of the council’s Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee. The council uses an established formula based on court workload to allocate the funding equitably among the 58 superior courts in California. (Watch archived video of this agenda item) Legal Services for Low-Income PartiesThe council approved $54 million in state funding allocated over the next three years to fund the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, which supports projects providing legal representation and improved court services for low-income parties on critical legal issues affecting basic human needs. These projects address housing, domestic violence, civil harassment, probate conservatorships, guardianships, elder abuse, and child custody matters. “The Shriver program is California’s commitment to ensuring meaningful access for low-income litigants facing issues that affect basic needs,” said Judge Judith Dulcich. “For example, Shriver-funded attorneys are essential in helping self-represented litigants navigate evolving eviction procedures, rental assistance programs, and complex housing laws.”  (Watch the archived video of this Consent Agenda item) Other Items on the Council Meeting Agenda: Updated Plan for Court Construction: The council approved the Judicial Branch Five-Year Infrastructure Plan and five capital-outlay budget change proposals for fiscal year 2027–28. The plan represents the funding needs for new courthouse construction, as well as renovations and additions to existing facilities. The rating and ranking criteria looks at a number of factors related to courthouse conditions, such as seismic strength, safety and security, ADA compliance, and access to court services. Courthouse construction follows standardized and previously approved courtroom layouts, which saves time and money. (Watch archived video of this agenda item) Upgrading Court Technology: The council approved $12.5 million in state grant funding provided to help courts expand their use of technology, including projects related to cybersecurity, technology infrastructure, case management systems, and e-filing. Courts requested nearly $63 million in grant funding, demonstrating the substantial gap in available funds and the courts desire to use technology to improve court operations and services to the public. Due to the limited funding, the council encourages courts to collaborate on shared technology projects. (Watch archived video of this agenda item) Grants to Improve Jury Service: The council approved $600,000 in state grant funding to improve jury service management, including money for jury management systems upgrades, self-check-in kiosks, A/V equipment, and other tools that would increase efficiency and improve the experience of potential jurors called to serve. Grants to Expand Language Access: The council approved $2.35 million in state grant funding to expand language access for court users. Funding will be included for court projects related to interpreter equipment, translation of court website information, and multilingual kiosks and audio/visual systems. Budget Change Proposals: The council approved budget change proposals to the California Department of Finance for consideration in the fiscal year 2027-28 budget, which include increased funding for court-appointed counsel, technology, cybersecurity, and courthouse maintenance. The budget change proposals represent the highest values and priorities of the state judicial branch and support increasing access to justice for all Californians. (Watch archived video of this agenda item) The complete meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center—an archived webcast of today’s meeting will be posted to the center as soon as it is available. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/leadership-perspectives-chief-justice-tani-g-cantil-sakauye-100-years-judicial-council Leadership Perspectives: Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye on 100 Years of the Judicial CouncilCorren, Blaine Tue, 07/14/2026 - 11:08 Feature In celebration of the council’s 100th anniversary, former California Chief Justices and Judicial Council Administrative Directors offered their perspectives on the importance of the council and its mission to enhance access to justice. Their perspectives help show how the council evolved into a critical institution that promotes consistency across courts, elevates service to the public, and enhances the experience of those who rely on our justice system. California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye (Ret.) California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye (Ret.)In her role as Chief Justice from 2011-2022, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye served as chair of the Judicial Council of California. In a recent interview, she answered questions about her time leading the council, including her biggest accomplishments as well as her greatest challenges. “I think I just assumed that people understood all three branches of government, and that there would be easier conversations about making sure that all of the government could still provide services during a time of crisis, like the Great Recession, or COVID-19,” said Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye. Despite the budget challenges facing the judicial branch when she began her term as Chief Justice, she added “I think that having and confronting a crisis in the moment really brings out our best instincts about how to deal with it, how to include folks, and how to proceed.” See the full interview with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye on the Celebrating 100 Years of the Judicial Council of California website. More interviews in this leadership perspectives series will be posted in the next few months. History, Timeline, Videos, and Exhibit Further Highlight Impact of Judicial CouncilComplementing the judicial leader perspectives, additional resources on the 100th anniversary website help explain the council’s impact on California’s judicial branch and the residents who rely on the justice system: The Judicial Council of California: The First 100 Years (1926–2026): Narrative history of the council, which has helped to solidify the judicial branch and improve court services for the public. 100 Milestones for 100 Years:  Interactive timeline highlights some of the actions taken or supported by the Judicial Council to improve the court system and enhance the administration of justice. Video: How the Judicial Council Is Transforming the Court Experience: Showcases just a few of the council’s transformative initiatives, including self-help services; language access support; remote access; and building modern and secure new courthouses. Council Leadership: Bios of previous Chief Justices and council Administrative Directors, as well as a list of Judicial Council members who have served from 1926 to 2026. Videos: Public Servants of California's Judicial Branch: Videos highlight some of California's dedicated public servants, who speak about why they choose to serve in the judicial branch and with the council. 100th Anniversary Archive Exhibit: Historical photos, publications, and other memorabilia from the council that highlight key milestones and achievements in expanding access to justice over the past century. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-consider-funding-proposals-trial-court-operations Judicial Council to Consider Funding Proposals for Trial Court OperationsCorren, Blaine Fri, 07/10/2026 - 16:33 News Release SAN FRANCISCO—The Judicial Council at its July 17 meeting will consider recommendations on how to allocate funding to the trial courts included in the most recent state budget signed by Gov. Newsom. The funding recommendations for fiscal year 2026–27 include how to allocate money for staffing, interpreters, court-appointed dependency counsel, continued implementation of the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, and other costs associated with trial court operations. The recommendations use an established formula based on court workload to allocate the funding. Other Items on the Council Meeting Agenda: Budget Change Proposals: The council will consider submitting 24 budget change proposals to the California Department of Finance for consideration in the fiscal year 2027-28 budget, which include increased funding for new judgeships, court-appointed counsel, technology, interpreters, cybersecurity, and new courthouse construction and maintenance. Updated Plan for Court Construction: The council will consider the Judicial Branch Five-Year Infrastructure Plan and five capital-outlay budget change proposals for fiscal year 2027–28. The plan represents the funding needs for new courthouse construction, as well as renovations and additions to existing facilities. Upgrading Court Technology: The council will consider a proposal to allocate $12.5 million in grant funding to help courts expand their use of technology, including projects related to cybersecurity, technology infrastructure, case management systems, and e-filing. Legal Services for Low-Income Parties: The council will consider funding recommendations totaling $54 million over the next three years under the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act to support projects providing legal representation and improved court services for low-income parties on critical legal issues affecting basic human needs. These projects address housing, domestic violence, civil harassment, probate conservatorships, guardianships, elder abuse, and child custody matters. Grants to Improve Jury Service: The council will consider a proposal to allocate $600,000 in grant funding to improve jury service management, including money for jury management systems upgrades, self-check-in kiosks, A/V equipment, and other tools that would increase efficiency and improve the experience of potential jurors called to serve. Grants to Expand Language Access: The council will consider a proposal to allocate $2.35 million in grant funding to expand language access for court users. Funding would be included for court projects related to interpreter equipment, translation of court website information, and multilingual kiosks and audio/visual systems. The complete council meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center. A link to a live webcast of the meeting will be on the California Courts website on the day of the meeting. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-courts-make-language-used-jury-service-more-gender-inclusive California Courts to Make Language Used in Jury Service More Gender Inclusivenatalie.l.ston… Thu, 06/25/2026 - 12:23 Feature This summer, the California courts are updating language used in jury service materials to be more gender inclusive, like changing the phrase “his or her jury service” to “a person’s jury service.” The updates help minimize gender bias and create a more welcoming environment for transgender jurors, nonbinary jurors, or other jurors that may not identify with the traditional gender binary. Approximately 220,000 transgender and nonbinary adults live in California. Updates to Jury Service Standards, Rules, and Forms  Earlier this year, the Judicial Council’s Advisory Committee on Providing Access and Fairness made recommendations to improve gender inclusivity in jury materials. Following those recommendations, the council adopted a new standard of judicial administration (a guideline for the courts) and updated three rules of court, two juror forms, and sample scripts used in jury selection.  “Building a welcoming environment for every juror fosters public trust in the justice system,” says San Francisco County Judge Michael Rhoads, a council member and a member of the council's Advisory Committee on Providing Access and Fairness. “The Judicial Council’s important work ensures that our juries represent the people they serve.  When people from all backgrounds feel respected and empowered to participate, our courts and our communities are stronger.” The new standard of judicial administration provides the courts with ways to promote gender inclusivity, including:  Avoid assuming the gender of a juror who has not indicated the pronouns they use.   Avoid seeking information about the gender of jurors unless it is necessary or relevant.   If it is necessary or relevant, provide jurors with the option to indicate their gender identity or expression, allowing for multiple selections and a write-in option.  The council also made updates to specific phrases in rules for court proceedings. The phrases include using “a person’s jury service” instead of “his or her jury service,” “prospective juror” instead of “mother” for potential deferrals of jury service due to breastfeeding, and “the prospective juror” instead of “himself or herself” for potential deferrals of jury service due to financial burden.  Other updates to optional questionnaires for prospective jurors included removing a question asking about the sex of a juror’s children and changing referrals to a juror’s parents, spouse, or significant other to gender-neutral terms. Lastly, the council amended two existing standards of judicial administration, which provide scripts for judges to use during jury selection. The changes include expanding the list of characteristics that might be subject to bias and using gender-neutral terms to refer to judges, attorneys, or others in the courtroom. Education for Judges on Gender Inclusivity  In addition to updating its standards and rules, the council also revised several reference materials for judges about ensuring access for LGBTQ+ people. The updated materials cover subjects like using inclusive language and pronouns, considerations for LGBTQ+ youth, and general best practices for inclusion of LGBTQ+ people during court proceedings. Council and Courts Have Long Recognized the Importance of Language Gender-inclusive language not only serves transgender and nonbinary communities but historically has helped endorse the inclusion of women in legal, professional, and social spaces.  Many words in the English language are masculinized, such as freshman, manpower, policeman, or congressman. Over the years, some of these words have been updated, like police officer or congressperson, to reflect the presence and contributions of women and other people that don’t identify as male.  Recognizing the importance of this type of language, more than 30 years ago the council adopted new rules of court to help address this issue. The council updated jury instructions to include “she” and “her” pronouns to refer to jurors, attorneys, and litigants. This helped diminish the gender bias that only men were participating in the judicial process. In addition to updating jury instructions, the council approved 66 other recommendations from its Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts. Judicial Council Committed to Providing Access and Fairness The council’s Advisory Committee on Providing Access and Fairness makes recommendations for improving access to the judicial system, fairness in the state courts, diversity in the judicial branch, and court services for self-represented parties. Key projects of this advisory body are outlined in its annual agenda. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/chief-justice-appoints-8-new-judicial-council-members-0 Chief Justice Appoints 8 New Judicial Council MembersCorren, Blaine Thu, 06/18/2026 - 12:45 News Release Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero appointed four new voting members and four new advisory (non-voting) members to the Judicial Council. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. The following two members of the council begin their terms July 1: Administrative Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood (voting member), Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, oversees the daily administration of her appellate district. In this role, she contributes to the statewide administration of the appellate courts on issues including budget, personnel, and facilities. Before joining the appellate bench, Justice Greenwood was the assistant supervising judge of the Family Division of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, where she chaired the Self-Represented Litigant and Community Access Committee and served on the Supervising Judges Committee. (more bio information)   Chad Finke (non-voting, advisory member), court executive officer for the Superior Court of Alameda County, has 25 years of judicial branch experience, with expertise in court operations, human resources, labor relations, finance, and policy analysis. Finke spent eight years at the Judicial Council, including three years as a division director. He currently serves on the council’s Court Executives Advisory Committee and Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee, as well as the National Criminal History Improvement Project. (more bio information) The following six members of the council begin their terms September 15: Judge Eric J. Wersching (voting member), Superior Court of Orange County, serves as the supervising judge of the court’s family law panel. In addition to his administrative responsibilities on the panel, he adjudicates disputes involving marital property, child custody, parenting time, domestic violence, and surrogacies. Judge Wersching is vice-chair of the Judicial Council’s Court Facilities Advisory Committee, chairs that advisory committee’s Court Standards Working Group, and is a member of the Superior Court of Orange County’s Finance Committee, Security Committee, and Supervising Judges Committee. (more bio information)   Presiding Judge Rodney A. Cortez (non-voting, advisory member), Superior Court of San Bernardino County, has previously served as assistant presiding judge, supervising judge of the San Bernardino Justice Center criminal division, and supervising judge of the Joshua Tree courthouse. He also served three terms on the Superior Court of San Bernardino County’s appellate division and was also the court’s judicial sponsor of the pretrial release program. In addition, Judge Cortez served as chair of the court’s Criminal Committee, Security Advisory Committee, Pretrial Release Committee, Probation Committee, and Budget Committee. He has also served on the Judicial Council’s Court Security Advisory Committee. (more bio information)   Judge Nicole C. Bershon (non-voting, advisory member), Superior Court of Los Angeles County, is appointed to the council as the president of the California Judges Association (CJA). She presides over a family law home court and previously oversaw a community collaborative court that focused on providing alternatives to incarceration for at-risk populations. Judge Bershon has served on the Superior Court of Los Angeles County's Executive, Community Outreach, Court Security, Jury, and Temporary Judge Committees. Prior to her appointment as a judge, she served as a court commissioner for two years. (more bio information)   Commissioner Benjamin J. Cassady (non-voting, advisory member), Superior Court of Sacramento County, adjudicates traffic, small claims, and unlawful detainer cases, after more than a year of presiding over Sacramento County’s Night Court calendar for in-custody arraignments and pretrial release. He is also a founding member of the Superior Court of Sacramento County’s Artificial Intelligence Committee. Commissioner Cassady serves on the Judicial Council’s Civil Law Curriculum Committee and previously served on the council’s Information and Technology Advisory Committee. (more bio information)   Marta A. Alcumbrac (voting member), an attorney at Nemecek & Cole in Los Angeles, focuses on the defense of lawyers in complex litigation, including legal malpractice, conflict of interest, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, abuse of process, defamation, and malicious prosecution matters. She is a certified specialist in legal malpractice law and has represented lawyers and law firms in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty cases for more 25 years. She is a member of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Lawyers’ Professional Liability, Los Angeles County Bar Association Board of Trustees, and serves on the Judicial Council’s Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee. (more bio information)   Alekxia L. Torres Stallings (voting member), an attorney and managing partner at Torres | Torres Stallings in Bakersfield, specializes in state and federal criminal defense and has served on many court-related committees at both the state and federal levels. She serves as a liaison to the Superior Court of Kern County’s Pretrial Assessment Committee. She also served as president of the Kern County Bar Association, which included membership on the bar association’s Judicial Appointment Evaluation Committee, the county’s local equivalent of the statewide Committee for Judicial Nominee Evaluation. (more bio information) More bio information on the new Judicial Council members The following members have been reappointed to the council effective September 15: Justice Carol A. Corrigan, Supreme Court of CaliforniaJudge Bunmi O. Awoniyi, Superior Court of Sacramento CountyJudge Charles Crompton, Superior Court of San Francisco CountyJudge Ann C. Moorman, Superior Court of Mendocino CountyClerk/Executive Officer Charles Johnson, Court of Appeal, First Appellate DistrictCourt Executive Officer Kate Bieker, Superior Court of Ventura County Departing Council Members Council members concluding their terms this year include Justice Joan K. Irion, Presiding Judge Patricia L. Kelly, Judge Maureen F. Hallahan, Judge Jeffrey C. Kauffman, Commissioner Ryan Davis, Court Executive Officer Darrel E. Parker, Senator Thomas J. Umberg, Attorney Rachel W. Hill, and Attorney Gretchen M. Nelson. Judicial Council Membership According to the state constitution, the Chief Justice chairs the Judicial Council and appoints one other Supreme Court justice, three justices from the courts of appeal, 10 trial court judges, two non-voting court administrators, and any other non-voting members as determined by the voting membership of the council. The State Bar’s governing body appoints four members, and the state senate and assembly each appoint one member. Council Members are volunteers and do not receive additional compensation for their service. Most members serve three-year terms, and each year about a third of the membership rotates off and a new group is sworn in. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/leadership-perspectives-chief-justice-ronald-m-george-100-years-judicial-council Leadership Perspectives: Chief Justice Ronald M. George on 100 Years of the Judicial CouncilCorren, Blaine Mon, 06/08/2026 - 10:51 Feature In celebration of the council’s 100th anniversary, former California Chief Justices and Judicial Council Administrative Directors offered their perspectives on the importance of the council and its mission to enhance access to justice. Their perspectives help show how the council evolved into a critical institution that promotes consistency across courts, elevates service to the public, and enhances the experience of those who rely on our justice system. California Chief Justice Ronald M. George (Ret.) California Chief Justice Ronald M. George (Ret.)In his role as Chief Justice from 1996-2011, George served as chair of the Judicial Council of California. In a recent interview, George answered questions about his time leading the council, including his biggest accomplishments as well as his greatest challenges. “The things I'm most proud of in my role as chair of the Judicial Council would be having the judiciary be in fact, and in perception, a separate and co-equal branch of government,” said Chief Justice George. Despite courts being part of a single judicial branch, he added that “it's so important to appreciate the enormous diversity in conditions among the courts” and that “diversity demands diverse solutions to meet local needs, and that the courts can adopt and adapt from what each court has done. We all learn from each other.” See the full interview with Chief Justice George on the Celebrating 100 Years of the Judicial Council of California website. More interviews in this leadership perspectives series will be posted in the next few months. ___________________________________________________________________________ History, Timeline, Videos, and Exhibit Further Highlight Impact of Judicial CouncilComplementing the judicial leader perspectives, additional resources on the 100th anniversary website help explain the council’s impact on California’s judicial branch and the residents who rely on the justice system: The Judicial Council of California: The First 100 Years (1926–2026): Narrative history of the council, which has helped to solidify the judicial branch and improve court services for the public. 100 Milestones for 100 Years: Interactive timeline highlights some of the actions taken or supported by the Judicial Council to improve the court system and enhance the administration of justice. Video: How the Judicial Council Is Transforming the Court Experience: Showcases just a few of the council’s transformative initiatives, including self-help services; language access support; remote access; and building modern and secure new courthouses. Council Leadership: Bios of previous Chief Justices and council Administrative Directors, as well as a list of Judicial Council members who have served from 1926 to 2026. Videos: Public Servants of California's Judicial Branch: Videos highlight some of California's dedicated public servants, who speak about why they choose to serve in the judicial branch and with the council. 100th Anniversary Archive Exhibit: Historical photos, publications, and other memorabilia from the council that highlight key milestones and achievements in expanding access to justice over the past century. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/publicservice-2026 Chief Justice, Judicial Council Honor Public Servants of California's Judicial BranchKaren.Datangel Mon, 05/04/2026 - 11:22 News Release Chief Justice of California Patricia Guerrero and the Judicial Council of California today mark their fourth annual celebration of Public Service Recognition Week. Said Chief Justice Guerrero: "As we mark the Judicial Council's one hundredth year, we honor those who built and who sustain this constitutional entity, and a judiciary that continues to evolve with the people it serves. As the third branch of government, our commitment remains firm to serve all Californians and uphold the rule of law as a cornerstone of our democracy. I am grateful to the more than 20,000 public servants across our state’s judicial branch who dedicate themselves to these principles every day." Public Service Recognition Week is celebrated annually during the first week of May to honor the people who serve our nation as federal, state, county, local, and tribal government employees. Videos produced by the Judicial Council highlight six of California's dedicated public servants, who speak about why they choose to serve in the judicial branch and with the council. JUDGE BUNMI AWONIYI Judge at the Sacramento Superior Court and council member:   JAYME LEE Associate analyst in the council’s Leadership Support Services office supporting various high-level projects: JAKE CHATTERS Court executive officer at the Placer Superior Court and chair of the council’s Data Analytics Advisory Committee: JAGAN SINGH Deputy director in the council's Facilities Services office, overseeing courthouse construction and modernization projects: JUDGE JUDITH DULCICH Judge at the Kern Superior Court and council member:   MARTHA WRIGHT Manager in the council's Criminal Justice Services office supporting collaborative justice courts, traffic fines and fees, and pretrial services: View all videos on YouTube, including the "We Choose to Serve..." montage. About the Judicial Council of California The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts, the largest court system in the nation. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/legal-history-asian-american-pacific-islander-experience-california Legal History of Asian American Pacific Islander Experience in CaliforniaKaren.Datangel Fri, 05/01/2026 - 15:12 Feature The state judicial branch's strategic plan includes the goal of Access, Fairness, Diversity, and Inclusion, where "The makeup of California’s judicial branch will reflect the diversity of the state’s residents." According to the Judicial Council’s latest annual judicial demographics report, the number of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders has slowly increased over the last 18 years. As of Dec. 31, 2025, Asian Americans made up 11.9% of judges in California, compared to 4.4% in 2006, while Pacific Islanders made up 0.2% of judges in California, compared to 0.1% in 2006.  Since taking office in 2019 through 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom made 576 judicial appointments – including 131 in 2024 – from a pool of 1,898 applicants. Of those appointments, 17.3% identify as Asian and 0.8% identify as Pacific Islander. This May, California courts and the Judicial Council of California join the nation in recognizing Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month. If you are not able to view the timeline below, click here. This feature was originally published on May 2, 2024. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-approves-mandatory-reporting-civil-arrests-court-facilities Judicial Council Approves Mandatory Reporting of Civil Arrests in Court FacilitiesCorren, Blaine Fri, 04/24/2026 - 12:44 News Release VIA WEB CONFERENCE—Judicial Council members approved a new rule at their April 24 business meeting that requires courts to report civil arrests—such as those related to federal immigration enforcement actions—that happen in superior court facilities. The new rule aims to help the judicial branch better understand the impacts civil arrests in court facilities have on courts and access to justice and assist the branch in responding to court or community concerns. Sharif Elmallah, court executive officer for the Butte Superior Court, told council members about an incident at the Oroville courthouse where federal agents conducted a day-long enforcement operation and took several people into custody. “When people avoid court facilities out of fear, the court system cannot serve them and cannot function as intended,” said Elmallah, who also serves as co-chair of the council’s Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee and Court Executives Advisory Committee Joint Rules Subcommittee. “That affects the victim seeking protection under the law, witnesses whose testimony may be critical for parties to present their cases, and litigants who depend on their participation.” The new rule says reports should include, if known, the location of the arrest at the court facility, the law enforcement agency that conducted the arrest, whether any individuals were taken into custody, and if the arresting officer presented a judicial warrant. “The goal of rule 10.440 is data collection,” said Judge Scott R. L. Young, co-chair of the council’s Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee and Court Executives Advisory Committee Joint Rules Subcommittee. “The Judicial Council can and should understand where, and how, civil arrest activity occurs.” The rule goes into effect May 1, and courts will start reporting the information on civil arrests in court facilities to the council in June. The council expects to start posting the information on a publicly available dashboard in July. Watch video of this agenda item Other Items on Council Meeting Agenda: Representation for Children and Families in Dependency Proceedings: The council approved redistributions of court-appointed juvenile dependency counsel funds for fiscal year 2025-26. The allocations promote equitable distribution of resources and support effective representation for children and families in dependency proceedings. After the initial proposal for allocating the unspent dependency counsel funding was submitted to the council, another court identified $150,000 for reallocation. A revised council report will reflect the updated amount of available unspent dependency counsel funding, which increases from $980,773 to $1,130,773. Watch video of this agenda item Appointment of Counsel in Capital Cases: The council received a report from the 2025 Proposition 66 Counsel Working Group, which examined the appointment of attorneys for petitioners in capital habeas corpus proceedings in both the superior courts and the Courts of Appeal. The report provides strategies judicial branch entities could use to recruit and appoint counsel for petitioners in such proceedings, which includes advocating for appellate counsel funding and reactivating regional committees to assist superior courts in their efforts to recruit attorneys to take these cases. Watch video of this agenda item California Access to Justice Commission: The council heard a presentation from the California Access to Justice Commission on how for 30 years it has supported courts, the bar, and justice system stakeholders with research, reports, and support for the expansion of access to justice through legal services, self-help centers, navigators and small claims advisors, remote court services and proceedings, language assistance, libraries, and other community agencies and services. In addition, the council appointed Sacramento County Judge Andi Mudryk to one of the three positions on the commission appointed by the council. Watch video of this agenda item Gender Inclusivity of Juror Identification and Juror Questionnaires: The council adopted a new standard of judicial administration to ensure gender inclusivity in juror identification and juror questionnaires per Assembly Bill 1899 (2024). The council also approved changes to existing rules of court, forms, and standards to ensure language directed to jurors is gender inclusive. Report on Pretrial Programs: The council received the latest report on court pretrial programs and practices that promote safe, efficient, fair, and timely pretrial release of individuals booked into jail. The report includes data on bookings, release types, assessments conducted, the use of monitoring and supportive services, and case closure outcomes. The complete meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center—an archived webcast of today’s meeting will be posted to the center as soon as it is available. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-consider-mandatory-reporting-civil-arrests-court-facilities Judicial Council to Consider Mandatory Reporting of Civil Arrests in Court FacilitiesCorren, Blaine Fri, 04/17/2026 - 15:57 News Release VIA WEB CONFERENCE—Judicial Council members will consider a new rule at their April 24 business meeting that would require courts to report civil arrests—such as those related to federal immigration enforcement actions—that happen in superior court facilities. The proposed rule aims to help the judicial branch better understand the impacts civil arrests in court facilities have on courts and access to justice, as well as assist the branch in responding to court or community concerns. Other Items on Council Meeting Agenda: Report on Pretrial Programs: The council will consider the latest report on court pretrial programs and practices that promote safe, efficient, fair, and timely pretrial release of individuals booked into jail. The report includes data on bookings, release types, assessments conducted, the use of monitoring and supportive services, and case closure outcomes. Gender Inclusivity of Juror Identification and Juror Questionnaires: The council will consider adopting a new standard of judicial administration to ensure gender inclusivity in juror identification and juror questionnaires per Assembly Bill 1899 (2024). The proposal also recommends changes to existing rules of court, forms, and standards that currently use language directed to jurors that is not gender inclusive. Appointment of Counsel in Capital Cases: The council will receive a report from its 2025 Proposition 66 Counsel Working Group, which examined the appointment of counsel for petitioners in capital habeas corpus proceedings in both the superior courts and the Courts of Appeal. The report will summarize information the working group received from speakers with experience in capital habeas corpus proceedings and provide suggestions that judicial branch entities may consider in their efforts to recruit and appoint counsel for petitioners in such proceedings. California Access to Justice Commission: The council will hear a presentation from the California Access to Justice Commission, which works with courts, the bar, and justice system stakeholders to expand access to justice through legal services, self-help centers, navigators and small claims advisors, language assistance, libraries, and other community agencies and services. The complete council meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center. A link to a live webcast of the meeting will be on the California Courts website on the day of the meeting.