In Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Commission, the Supreme Court last week held a “significant legislative change” more than two decades ago requires closer judicial review than before of many Public Utilities Commission decisions. This includes how courts should determine the validity of a 2022 Commission tariff that lowered the price utilities pay for excess power generated by customers, mostly by solar energy systems.

(Subscription required) The state law does not, however, give plaintiffs in such circumstances an automatic pass back to the trial court, the majority said. Instead, defendants who can show they made a good-faith mistake, inadvertently missed a payment deadline or committed otherwise "excusable neglect" should still be able to arbitrate, a majority of justices held.

The case is expected to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) preempts state statutes prescribing the procedures for paying arbitration fees and providing for forfeiture of the right to arbitrate if timely payment is not made by the party who drafted the arbitration agreement and who is required to pay such fees.

On July 18, 2025, the California Judicial Council approved a landmark framework governing the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in the state’s judicial branch. California is one of the first and the largest court systems in the United States to adopt such a sweeping GenAI regulation framework across the nation.