https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/fourth-appellate-district-announces-destruction-old-court-records-20 Fourth Appellate District Announces Destruction of Old Court RecordsMartin.Novitski Wed, 04/08/2026 - 09:00 News Release Riverside—The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, has announced its intention to destroy original proceedings pursuant to Rule 10.1028(d)(1) of the California Rules of Court. All original proceedings (excluding those with published opinions) are preserved for a period longer than 10 years. The records transfer lists of the cases and files relating to this destruction of old court records are available on the court’s website: List Anyone who knows of a reason why any of the records listed should be retained, whether for historical or other reasons, should notify AnnDee Smith, Assistant Clerk/Executive Officer. The reasons for retention should be sent in writing by May 8th, 2026 to:                     AnnDee Smith, Assistant Clerk/Executive Officer                     Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two                     3389 12th Street                     Riverside, CA  92501 Please note that records and case files for actions that result in a published opinion will be retained permanently by the California State Archives, 1020 “O” Street, Sacramento, CA  95814. The Reference Desk can be contacted at (916) 653-2246. Their website is www.sos.ca.gov/archives. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/third-appellate-district-announces-destruction-old-court-records-0 Third Appellate District Announces Destruction of Old Court Recordsnatalie.l.ston… Mon, 04/06/2026 - 15:43 News Release SACRAMENTO – The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, announces its intention to destroy the following records in accordance with the California Rules of Court, rule 10.1028(c): Civil cases with case numbers C054608 through C073746. If anyone knows of a reason why a particular case, among the above numbered cases, should be retained, notify Todd C. Eyster, Assistant Clerk/Executive Officer, in writing setting forth in detail the reason(s) for retention. All requests must be received by May 6 and may be sent to 3DC-Comments@jud.ca.gov, or mailed to: Todd C. Eyster Assistant Clerk/Executive Officer Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District 914 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/memoriam-associate-justice-howard-b-wiener In Memoriam: Associate Justice Howard B. WienerMartin.Novitski Tue, 03/24/2026 - 12:54 News Release Former Associate Justice Howard B. Wiener of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, passed away on March 20, 2026.  Justice Wiener was born in Providence, Rhode Island on February 1, 1931, attending public schools there. He graduated from Brown University in 1952 with a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy.  Three years later, he obtained his law degree from Harvard University Law School. Following graduation from law school, Justice Wiener and his wife Joan moved to California, where he served as a law clerk to U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Harrison in Los Angeles from 1955 to 1956.  He was admitted to the California Bar in January 1956. During the next 20 years, he practiced law in a small firm in West Covina, handling all types of cases.  He was also active in the legal community, serving as President of the Pomona Valley Bar Association in 1968, on the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles County Bar Association from 1969 to 1971, and on the State Bar Board of Governors from 1972 to 1975 (Vice President, 1974-1975). On July 25, 1975, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. appointed him to the San Bernardino County Superior Court.  Roughly three years later in May 1978, the Governor selected him to be an Associate Justice on Division One of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District in San Diego.  Over the next 15 years, Justice Wiener became known for clear and thoughtful opinions that adapted and applied legal principles to compassionately serve the interests of people from all walks of life. Despite practicing law in Los Angeles and the Inland Empire, Justice Wiener quickly became active in the San Diego legal community, serving as President of the William B. Enright American Inn of Court from 1991 to 1993 and later as one of its four distinguished emeritus members.  In 2018 he was honored by all five San Diego Inn of Court chapters with the second-ever lifetime achievement award.  A vocal advocate for education at every level and a mentor for many younger lawyers, Justice Wiener was an adjunct professor at the University of San Diego (USD) School of Law (1979-1986) and California Western School of Law (1986-1994), teaching professional responsibility and appellate advocacy respectively.  He also served as Chair of the Board of Visitors at USD Law School.  In 1982 he obtained a Master of Laws Degree in judicial process from the University of Virginia Law School. Justice Wiener retired from the Court on December 31, 1993.  Beginning in 1994, he was actively engaged in private dispute resolution, serving in more than 1,700 cases as a mediator, arbitrator and private judge.  He is co-author with Jon B. Eisenberg and Ellis J. Horvitz of the California Civil Practice Guide, Civil Appeals and Writs, published by The Rutter Group.  In 2007, he was interviewed for the California Appellate Courts Legacy Project.  The interview is available at California Appellate Court Legacy Project | District Courts of Appeal. Justice Wiener was preceded by his wife Joan, and is survived by his son Daniel, daughters Anne and Carrie, five grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/first-appellate-district-announces-destruction-old-court-records First Appellate District Announces Destruction of Old Court Recordsnatalie.l.ston… Tue, 03/24/2026 - 12:32 News Release SAN FRANCISCO—The Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, has announced its intention to destroy old civil records, case names, and case numbers, pursuant to Rule 10.1028(d) (1) of the California Rules of Court. All civil cases (excluding those with published opinions) are preserved for at least 10 years. Records related to cases on this list will be destroyed.  Anyone who knows of a reason why any of the records listed should be retained, whether for historical or other purposes, should notify Charles D. Johnson, Clerk/Executive Officer. The reasons for retention should be in writing and received by the court by April 23, and addressed to:                     Charles D. Johnson, Clerk/Executive Officer                    Court of Appeal, First Appellate District                    350 McAllister Street                    San Francisco, CA  94102 Please note that records and case files for actions that result in a published opinion will be retained permanently by the California State Archives, 1020 “O” Street, Sacramento, CA  95814. The Reference Desk can be contacted on their website or at (916) 653-2246.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-chief-justice-delivers-2026-state-judiciary-address California Chief Justice Delivers 2026 State of the Judiciary AddressBalassone, Merrill Mon, 03/23/2026 - 15:21 News Release SACRAMENTO—Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero today delivered the 2026 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 all so much. Thank you Speaker Rivas, Senate President pro Tempore Limón, distinguished statewide constitutional officers and guests. I am proud to be joined here today by my colleagues from the California Supreme Court (and our Clerk and Executive Officer and court staff); justices, judges, and court executives from local courts around the state; members of our Judicial Council; the California Judges Association; the Bench Bar Coalition; and our justice system partners. I thought about different approaches I could take with my remarks this year. With so much going on in our nation—so much controversy, division, uncertainty, and chaos as well—I’ve decided to offer you something different. If anyone is looking for controversial statements or divisive rhetoric, you will not get it. Instead, I offer you normalcy and a calm and measured report regarding the important work our judicial branch has undertaken over this past year, and some of the major issues facing the judiciary. First, I want to commemorate a significant anniversary in the formation of our country. In 1776, our founders boldly declared their independence from Britain and its King, and stated that we are endowed with unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” With force and clarity, they set forth their list of grievances against “the establishment of an absolute Tyranny”—included among their concerns was a statement that the King had “obstructed the Administration of Justice” and “made Judges dependent on his Will alone.” They later offered a different path—establishing our constitutional republic of three separate and coequal branches of government. We must all safeguard this structure and the fundamental principles which form the basis of our government and the promise of this country. This year, the judicial branch plans to celebrate the unique role we play, and the privilege we have, to uphold the rule of law for all who appear before us—without fear or favor, with courage and steadfast commitment to our oath that we have taken to uphold our constitutions. Now we look forward to celebrating our respective roles alongside all of you. Our jobs are made more challenging, however, by the rise in threats against the judiciary—something I’m not sure our founding fathers would have precisely envisioned. The issue of judicial security is prominent in the minds of many judicial officers, and recent events have unfortunately demonstrated that service on the bench can pose significant safety risks. The Judicial Council of California has made judicial security a legislative priority. We need sufficient resources in order to protect “personnel, the public and court systems from physical, online, and cyber threats.” The council also will continue to advocate for legislation designed to protect the privacy of judges—an issue that is fundamentally intertwined with judicial security. A marked increase in negative rhetoric surrounding judges, including from elected officials, has contributed to these concerns. We welcome public scrutiny, transparency, and accountability regarding the legal reasoning reflected in our rulings. Public engagement, whether resulting in praise or criticism for our decisions, is commendable and should be encouraged. We do not, however, welcome divisive name-calling or inaccurate and uninformed accounts about our roles—we believe this serves only to distort the public’s understanding of the judiciary and shake their confidence in our democracy. And we should all emphatically speak out against normalizing personal attacks against judges—for all our sakes. Fortunately in California, we have many examples of how government should work, even in challenging times, and I would like to express my appreciation for your partnership and your support in these areas. I have spoken in the past regarding our three-branch solutions. I would like to touch upon a few examples. Remote Proceedings Since March 2022, over 6 million proceedings have been conducted with remote technology. In a one-year period from September 2024 to August 2025, that represented over 7,000 proceedings per day. Trends in positive experiences with these services have remained consistent over time, at about 95% satisfaction overall. The data unequivocally shows great public interest in having remote options, but existing statutory authority for remote proceedings is scheduled to expire at the end of this year (on January 1, 2027), or precisely I believe in 2027, but I’ll go with the end of the year for all of you. For the benefit of all Californians who see the advantages of technology and choose to appear remotely, I look forward to working with all of you to meet Californians’ needs and expectations in this area. CARE Act Proceedings As you know, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which you passed in 2022 and which has been implemented in phases through December 2024, is now fully operational in all 58 counties. Between October 2023 and January 2026, there have been a total of 3,810 petitions filed. During that same time, courts ordered 925 CARE agreements and plans; and a further 1,835 individuals are still being actively engaged in these court proceedings. The Judicial Council publishes this CARE Act data on its California Courts website, providing a fuller description of the CARE process for anyone to see. These numbers, understandably, may not be satisfactory to those whose loved ones do not qualify for CARE Act assistance. With the recent expansion of the program to cover bipolar disorders with psychotic features—in addition to the original criteria of schizophrenia spectrum disorders—we do hope to reach more people in need and help redefine what justice looks like for Californians living with certain behavioral health challenges. While this is not a panacea, we can be proud of our partnership in this area. For each person who receives assistance—whether it is through a voluntary agreement or court-ordered plan or other referrals for services—their lives are greatly improved because of the CARE Act. In other words, the volume of petitions filed alone does not fully capture the overall effectiveness of the program. I would like to acknowledge the tireless work of our judges, court staff, and community partners who are managing the CARE Act petitions filed in our courts. As you know, they’re helping individuals with severe mental illness access housing, medication, and recovery services before they fall deeper into crisis. And these courts are not just legal forums, they are bridges to stability, safety, and hope for Californians who need it most. I thank our Governor, each of you in the Legislature, and each of our trial courts for your commitment to exploring ways to help these individuals. In addition to these two areas, I also look forward to partnering with you to address other ongoing, and in some instances, longstanding, issues of concern that are facing our courts. Judicial Positions First starting with our trial courts. We are grateful for the $70 million in ongoing funding that has been proposed in the Governor’s budget for the increasing costs of trial court operations. A longstanding problem our courts face, however, relates to the lack of funding for judgeships in counties with the greatest need. We are updating our judicial needs assessment—but the latest report from October 2022 reflects some stark realities I’d like to provide some context on: In recent years, the judicial branch has received funding for the 50 judgeships that were authorized as far back as 2007 (by AB 159 (Stats. 2007)): Two positions were funded in 2018 and allocated to Riverside County Superior Court; 25 positions were funded in 2019; and 23 positions were funded in 2022. Based on the October 2022 report, there was still a need even at that time for 98 additional judicial officers. While this funding has helped to minimize the gap between the number of authorized judgeships and judicial needs, there are still significant, ongoing challenges and needs that remain—with the need for more judges being especially acute in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.   What this means in practical terms is that justice is not served the way that it should be. As an example, in Riverside County Superior Court, during the period from January 9, 2023 to March 6, 2026, 437 misdemeanor cases and 57 felony cases were dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1050, subdivision (j), because of the condition of the court’s congested calendar. This is despite the Judicial Council making available temporary assigned judges when requested by the superior court, to help alleviate the burden on the court. Riverside, as an example again, has the highest use of our temporary assigned judges. Last fiscal year, the total expense associated with these assigned judges in Riverside County alone was about $3M. We will continue to make resources available to the courts through our Temporary Assigned Judges Program, and we look forward to working with all of you to find more permanent, predictable, and sustainable solutions to these challenges.   Artificial Intelligence I’d also like to touch upon AI. The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence continues to present both challenges and opportunities as we work to expand access to justice and improve efficiency across the judicial branch. In 2025, our Artificial Intelligence Task Force developed comprehensive guidance for courts on the responsible use of generative AI tools. The task force is now focusing on deep fakes and the impact of AI on the admissibility of evidence. I think you’ll agree with me that it’s a critical area to maintain integrity and public trust in judicial proceedings.   The Judicial Council approved a new rule of court on the use of generative AI for court-related work by judges and court staff. These guidelines emphasize accuracy, oversight, and transparency, while proactively mitigating risks related to privacy, bias, and security. They also underscore the importance of human judgment in all AI-assisted processes, ensuring that technology complements—rather than replaces—the expertise of our judicial officers.   The judicial branch is laying a strong foundation with its model policies, training programs, and pilot case studies that explore practical applications of AI.   We are committed to working collaboratively with all of you and our stakeholders to ensure that statutory requirements protect the public without unnecessarily restricting the appropriate and beneficial use of AI tools. Our goal is to strike the right balance between innovation and accountability, ensuring technology does not interfere with—but instead enhances—justice.   Impact of Federal Immigration Enforcement on Court Operations Last year, I also spoke about the considerable stress, anxiety, and confusion experienced by many Californians regarding federal immigration policies and enforcement as they intersect with our state courts. I also previously made clear that the federal government, of course, has the right and obligation to do its job but it should conduct its operations in a way that does not interfere with ours. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Public apprehension has continued to grow because of the way federal enforcement action has occurred—including the presence of federal officers in at least 17 of our state courthouses. These developments raise profound questions about access to justice, community trust, and the safety of individuals seeking legal remedies. The Judicial Council has taken proactive steps to address some of these challenges. Over the past year, we have provided extensive training for our courts on federal executive orders, the legal implications of immigration activity at courthouses, and relevant California statutes that are designed to uphold the principle of equal justice under the law. We have collected data informally so that we have a better understanding of the impact on court operations. Next month, the Judicial Council will consider a proposed California Rule of Court that would formalize our information gathering regarding civil arrests at state courthouses. This will help inform next steps as we consider options for protecting against encroachments on our ability to ensure that courts remain open and accessible to everyone. I would like again to reiterate that we can all perform our independent obligations consistent with our constitutional mandates in support of the rule of law, with our courts focusing on being available to everyone. We will continue to do everything within our power 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. State Bar Update I also want to report back on issues I raised last year with respect to the State Bar and the disastrous experience we had with the February 2025 bar exam. I can still say that in a calm and measured way. 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. For our part, the court has taken several corrective actions on the bar exam: Approved scoring adjustments to the February 2025 exam and an expansion of the Provisional License Program; Ordered the return to in-person testing using the Multistate Bar Exam provided by the National Conference of Bar Examiners; and Amended rules governing the exam and attorney admissions in order to strengthen and clarify the authority of the Committee of Bar Examiners and its role over attorney admissions. The amended rules address question review, validation, and proctoring; subpoena authority; oversight of the Office of Admissions’ budget; fee setting; and mandated cost-benefit analysis before there’s any proposed changes to the exam. It is too soon to report back on the future of the California Bar, but it is safe to say that nobody wants a repeat of what happened last year, and we will keep this experience in mind in determining what additional steps to take when presented with the State Bar’s recommendations in the near future.   Through our collaborative and complementary governance responsibilities, together we will continue to ensure that the public is protected and qualified new attorneys are admitted to the practice of law in our state.   Legislative Visits   I know that the challenges I have highlighted are not coming as a surprise to many of you, or at least I hope they’re not. I believe the courts have been transparent in explaining the difficulties we face and the needs we have in order to properly serve the public.   In addition, we have also invited you to come see the good work our courts do even under often difficult circumstances. Thank you for accepting our invitations to visit our various courts across the state. I know Senator Umberg thanks you too. I see him waving in the back. You guys must agree.   We continue to work with our local trial courts to coordinate legislative visits so that members can experience first-hand our day-to-day court operations—the challenges, innovations, and efficiencies—as well as the opportunity to meet with the committed public servants who provide court services to the constituents in your districts.   Since I last addressed you, we have been pleased to facilitate the visits of at least 15 senators and 22 assemblymembers, who have visited 15 local trial courts; some of you have visited more than once, some to more than one jurisdiction in your district, and some of you have worked directly with your local courts to schedule these visits.   We hope that, through these visits, you can see what I know to be true—we have a strong foundation for overcoming the real challenges we face.   We have over 2,000 dedicated public servants who are committed to the fair and impartial administration of justice. These judges, I believe, are significantly underpaid. The last judicial salary adjustment, separate from any adjustments provided under Government Code section 68203, was 19 years ago in 2007, when judges received an 8.5% increase. Judicial salaries are significantly lower than those of certain California state and local government attorneys, with growing pay differentials worsening over many years. I recognize we face a difficult financial budget this year, but I believe it’s necessary to flag this now because this level of inequity jeopardizes the judicial branch’s ability to attract and retain the best-qualified candidates for the bench. I look forward to discussing this further with you in the near future.   Californians rely on and deserve a judiciary that delivers the highest quality of justice and service. We do this through, not only our daily work in the courtroom, but through our commitment to upholding our ethical duties to maintain independence, integrity, and impartiality; our robust educational requirements; and through outreach efforts like our court’s annual special oral argument sessions at various locations throughout the state, my Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative, and countless other training, mentoring, and outreach programs held on a regular basis by courts at every level throughout the state.   This year, in addition to commemorating the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, we also mark an important milestone for the Judicial Council of California—the 100th year since it was founded through a vote of the people in 1926.   Through the council’s work, we have achieved greater consistency across courts, built a statewide administrative infrastructure, and consistently sought better funding for needed systemic improvements.   I am grateful for the vision, dedication, and hard work of the judicial branch leaders and Judicial Council members who have preceded me to build a strong and accountable judiciary that works collaboratively with our sister branches.   Because of this foundation—stemming from the structures we have in place, and more importantly, the people who are committed to this work—the state of the judiciary is strong, resilient, and committed to the rule of law and equal access to justice for all Californians.   Sister Branches And although my focus, of course, is on the judiciary—I also want to acknowledge two points regarding our sister branches of government.   First, I was so honored to swear in the Senate’s new President pro Tempore Monique Limón earlier this year. In the interest of time, I will not repeat all the “firsts” that her selection represents. But we’re so proud of her. It also has been a true privilege to work with Speaker Robert Rivas since his swearing in in June 2023. I also note this means Latinos are the leaders of two of the three branches of government—the judiciary and both houses in the Legislature—for the first time in California’s history.   Second—Governor Newsom. As he concludes his second term as Governor of our great state at the end of this year, I want to thank him for his thoughtful collaboration with the Legislature and the Judiciary, and for his dedicated service to the state.   I want to acknowledge the Governor for his collaboration on our three-branch solutions to improve access to justice in California, his willingness to listen to the needs and concerns of the judiciary, and his efforts to provide stable ongoing funding for the judicial branch.   Through his outreach efforts to encourage more diverse candidates from a variety of legal backgrounds, our Governor has also diversified California’s judiciary in a meaningful way. Of his 695 judicial appointments—with one more coming soon—more than half have been women, and more than half have been people of color. We thank the Governor for strengthening California’s judiciary.   And we’ll have more time with him—so I look forward to our continued collaboration. And I also look forward to the judiciary’s continued, strong partnership with the Legislature in our shared endeavor to serve the people of our state.   In closing, I would like to again reinforce the importance of our nation’s 250th celebration of our independence. The judiciary remains committed to the same guiding principles which are embodied in that document—equality, unalienable rights, justice, and the rule of law.   With your help, we have made great strides in upholding these principles. And the judiciary remains committed to navigating through the obstacles I have highlighted and safeguarding these principles for all future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to address you."   https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-government-leaders-issue-joint-statement-250th-anniversary-declaration-independence California Government Leaders Issue Joint Statement on 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of IndependenceBalassone, Merrill Mon, 03/23/2026 - 09:45 News Release (From left to right) Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón, Governor Gavin Newsom, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, Governor Gavin Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas issued a joint statement on Monday to mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The leaders convened following Chief Justice Guerrero’s fourth State of the Judiciary address to highlight the enduring importance of the nation’s founding ideals and affirming their shared commitment to those principles. This year marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which established our great nation with three separate and coequal branches of government. As the leaders of California’s three branches of government, we affirm our continued dedication to safeguarding the rule of law, and to upholding a government that serves all Californians.” Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, Governor Gavin Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas signed the 250th Anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence Resolution, as the leaders of California's three branches of government. Read the transcript of Chief Justice Guerrero’s State of the Judiciary address. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-approves-rule-amendments-law-office-study-and-certified-law-students California Supreme Court Approves Rule Amendments for Law Office Study and Certified Law Students ProgramsBalassone, Merrill Thu, 03/19/2026 - 20:15 News Release The California Supreme Court on Wednesday approved amendments to rules governing the Law Office Study and Certified Law Students programs, broadening practical training opportunities for students and clarifying how they may participate in these programs to learn about the practice of law. Under the new amendments, Law Office Study program participants will soon be able to participate in the Certified Law Students program. The Law Office Study program offers an alternative to traditional law school, allowing aspiring lawyers to take the California bar exam after completing at least four years of supervised legal study in a law office or under the supervision of a California judge. The Certified Law Students program allows law students to represent clients and appear in court on a limited basis and under the supervision of a licensed attorney. The court modified the State Bar of California’s original proposal by allowing Law Office Study participants studying under a judge to also participate in Certified Law Students program provided that the supervisors in both programs “make good faith efforts to mitigate or prevent any actual or potential conflicts of interest or ethical concerns that might arise from the general applicant’s dual role.” “For example, a general applicant who studies in the Law Office Study program under the supervision of a judge should avoid appearing before that same judge when representing a client in the Certified Law Student Program,” the court wrote. The new amendments will take effect on June 1. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/court-appeal-third-appellate-district-hear-oral-argument-sutter-county-superior-courthouse Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District to Hear Oral Argument at Sutter County Superior Courthousenatalie.l.ston… Thu, 03/12/2026 - 10:42 News Release Yuba City – Administrative Presiding Justice Laurie M. Earl announced the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, will hear oral argument at Sutter County Superior Courthouse on March 25 beginning at 10 a.m. More than 100 students from surrounding schools are expected to attend, and interested members of the public, attorneys, and judges are also welcome. Doors will open at 9 a.m. Since 2000, the Third Appellate District has held oral argument sessions in 31 high schools and two law schools in 20 counties. The Third Appellate District has received statewide recognition for its outreach program, which helps students and members of the public understand how appellate courts work. As part of the outreach program, justices of the Third Appellate District will discuss their career paths and hold a question-and-answer session after oral argument. The justices are not permitted to answer questions about the case.  Attendees are required to go through a security screening, so it’s recommended to arrive early. The following two cases will be heard:   Calendar 10 – 10:30 a.m.: Women’s Health Specialists v. C.H., case number C102979.  Appeal from a workplace violence restraining order, preventing appellant, a frequent protestor at a women’s health clinic, from harassing an employee or from coming within 100 yards of the employee, their car, their workplace – the clinic – for three years. 10:35 a.m. – 11:05 a.m.: People v. Vasquez, case number C102449.  Appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence to six years plus life without the possibility of parole after the jury found defendant guilty of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder and custodial possession of a weapon and also found true the special circumstance allegation that defendant intentionally lay in wait. 11:10 a.m. – 11:40 a.m.: Question-and-answer session with the justices. If you are a reporter and would like to photograph or record the session, please submit a Media Request Form and an Order on Media Request to Colette Bruggman at 3DCefiling@jud.ca.gov. The Third Appellate District usually holds oral argument in its courtroom at 914 Capitol Mall, Sacramento. The Third Appellate District is made up of 23 counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo and Yuba.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/2026-judicial-demographics-report-california-bench-continues-grow-more-diverse 2026 Judicial Demographics Report: California Bench Continues to Grow More DiverseCorren, Blaine Mon, 03/02/2026 - 10:32 News Release Since December 2006: Number of female justices and judges is up 17.8 percentage points Percentage of Asian, Black, and Hispanic justices and judges has increased more than 140 percent For the 20th straight year, California’s judicial bench has grown more diverse, according to the Judicial Officer (JO) Demographic Data report released by the Judicial Council. The data reflect demographic information self-reported by justices and judges on the bench as of December 31, 2025, with a response rate of 93%. Responding to the questionnaire is voluntary, and the data only reflects the responses provided. Per data collected in December 2025 (and published in March 2026), responding female justices and judges constitute 44.9% of the judiciary across all court levels, a 1.6 percentage point increase over the prior year and an increase of 17.8 percentage points since December 2006—the first time that data were collected for this purpose. The bench also has continued to become more racially and ethnically diverse. The percentage of responding Asian, Black, and Hispanic justices and judges has increased by more than 140 percent since 2006. Statewide, Multi-Branch Effort to Increase Judicial Diversity The Judicial Council’s Strategic Plan for California’s Judicial Branch makes explicit the branch’s commitment to a diverse and inclusive court system. The plan supports efforts like the council’s Pathways to Judicial Diversity toolkit, which encourages courts to reach out to underrepresented groups—including individuals with diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, disabilities, and sexual orientations—to educate and advise them about pursuing careers in the law. In addition, the Judicial Mentor Program is a statewide undertaking between the Governor’s office and the California courts to develop and recruit qualified and diverse judicial applicants—and the state’s appellate and superior courts also have their own local mentor programs. Progress on increasing judicial diversity has continued under our current Governor’s appointments. Since taking office in 2019 through 2025, more than half of Governor Gavin Newsom's 695 judicial appointments have been women justices and judges, and more than half also identified as Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic, or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Survey of California Bench The Judicial Council surveyed California judges and justices in December 2025 to get a snapshot of the demographics of the California bench—including gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Among the findings: Gender Of the responding judicial officers, data show the percentage of female justices and judges has increased to 44.9%, compared to 27.1% in 2006, continuing a steady upward trend. Race and Ethnicity The data also show changes over the past 20 years in the percentage of responding justices and judges reported in the following race/ethnicity categories: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.3% in 2025 compared to 0.1% in 2006) Asian (11.9% in 2025 compared to 4.4% in 2006) Black or African American (9.9% in 2025 compared to 4.4% in 2006) Hispanic or Latino (13.1% in 2025 compared to 6.3% in 2006) Pacific Islander (0.2% in 2025 compared to 0.1% in 2006) White (55.8% in 2025 compared to 70.1% in 2006) Some Other Race (1.4% in 2025 compared to 0.2% in 2006) More Than One Race (5.8% in 2025 compared to 4.4% in 2006) Information Not Provided (1.5% in 2024 compared to 9.9% in 2006) These changes reflect judicial retirements and other departures from the bench, new judicial appointments, and an increase in the number of trial court judges who voluntarily provided race/ethnicity information. Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation This is the 15th year that the study includes data on gender identity and sexual orientation, as required by a law passed in 2011. Survey respondents reported the following: Heterosexual – 80.9% Lesbian – 2.1% Gay – 3.0% Bisexual - 0.7% Transgender - 0.12% Nonbinary – 0.06% More than One Gender ID/Sexual Orientation – 0.3% Information not provided – 12.9% Veteran and Disability Status In addition, this is the 12th year that the study includes data on veteran and disability status. These questions were first asked of justices and judges who were new to the bench during the 2014 calendar year, although judges appointed before this date are free to update this aspect of their demographic profile as well. Of the 1170 active justices and judges responding to the question about their status as a veteran, 70 respondents (5.9%) indicated they have served in the military. Of the 1177 active justices and judges responding to the question concerning their disability status, 40 justices and judges (3.3%) indicated they have a disability. About Judicial Officer Demographic Data Government Code section 12011.5(n) requires the Judicial Council to collect and release aggregate demographic data on California state justices and judges by March 1 every year. This is the report’s 20th year. Increasing the diversity of California’s justices and judges to reflect California’s populace continues to be a goal of the Judicial Council. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-ethics-committee-issues-opinion-disclosure-and-disqualification-former-california California Ethics Committee Issues Opinion on Disclosure and Disqualification for Former California Judicial Mentor Program MentorsBalassone, Merrill Mon, 03/02/2026 - 09:30 News Release A California judicial ethics committee on Monday issued a formal opinion providing guidance on whether disqualification and/or disclosure may be required when a former mentee in the California Judicial Mentor Program (CJMP) appears before their former judicial mentor. The guidance was issued by the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)—a body which is appointed and authorized by, but works independently of, the California Supreme Court. In CJEO Formal Opinion 2026-031, the committee advises that judges and appellate justices who previously served as CJMP mentors should first determine whether to disqualify when a former mentee appears before them. Disqualification may be necessary, for example, if the mentorship created bias or resulted in a close friendship. The committee further notes that in circumstances likely to require disqualification, judges should not seek or accept a waiver of the disqualification. If disqualification is not required, the committee advises judges to consider whether disclosure of the prior mentorship is appropriate. The opinion provides examples of when disclosure may be necessary and recommends a disclosure period of six months to two years, depending on the circumstances. The committee also recommends that disclosure should be tailored to preserve the CJMP’s confidentiality protections. “For the expectedly rare instances in which a conflict of interest arises from participation in the CJMP, this opinion provides a careful analysis of whether, and how, former CJMP mentors should disqualify or disclose,” said Committee member Judge Robert J. Trentacosta. “The substance of the mentorship and the level of familiarity reached among the participants will naturally depend upon the individual mentors and mentees. This opinion seeks to provide practical advice that, across the many possible iterations of CJMP engagement, former mentors can apply to answer the important question of whether to disqualify or disclose based on a prior CJMP mentorship.” CJEO issued the opinion after circulating a draft for public comment in November 2025. About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, two retired judges, and a commissioner. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal, informal, and expedited advisory opinions on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities. CJEO’s website includes advisory opinions, resources dedicated to specific judicial assignments and issues, and extensive judicial ethics tools and resource materials for the benefit of the bench and the public.