Judicial Processes
Trial courts focus on the facts: did you violate the speed limit? If yes, pay the fine. Of course, the more serious the case, the more complex the factors to determine guilt and impose a just sentence. Suppose a party perceives that there is an error in judgment. In that case, they may appeal the case to courts of appeal and ultimately to the California Supreme Court (a case may also be heard in, or appealed to, federal Court when there is a question about federal law). The California Constitution requires the California Supreme Court to review all the death penalty convictions from the trial courts. In most of the remaining cases, it is the Court’s discretion whether the Court will grant the appeal and hear the case. For example, in the 2020-21 fiscal year, 6,522 cases were appealed, and the Court issued fifty-nine opinions (“Judicial Council”). Thus, the lower Court has the last word in all but a fraction of the cases.
When the Supreme Court receives a petition, staff attorneys working for each of the seven justices review them and recommend which ones should be put on the court docket. On most Wednesday mornings, the judges meet in conference to decide. Four must agree. A case is likely to be accepted when there is an important question regarding the constitutionality of a state law or practice.
The Chief Justice then assigns the case to a specific justice who creates a memorandum to address the questions of the case, which is then circulated among the other justices for their responses. This process shows the likely opinions of the justices, with the possibility of a majority opinion emerging. Next, oral argument: attorneys for the parties in the case present their summary arguments and respond to questions from justices in one hour. They are usually held in the first week of every month. On the same day of oral argument, the justices meet in conference. The justice assigned to the case sets out their position, as do the other justices, in the order of seniority, with the Chief Justice speaking last. The Court may coalesce around a single opinion, or concurring or dissenting opinions may develop that are also issued formally by the Court. Typically, an oral argument clarifies positions and sorts out details of an opinion rather than playing a crucial role in formulating an opinion. By law, the Court must announce an opinion within ninety days of oral argument (Liu).
How a Supreme Court justice decides a case or should decide is a subject of great debate. There is often a gulf between how judges understand what they do versus how the public perceives their work. First, the Court only hears actual cases; it cannot decide whether a law is constitutional before its passage and before someone brings a lawsuit to the Court. Thus, there may be a hard-fought campaign to pass a proposition in California only for it to be ruled unconstitutional after the election when someone goes to Court, and the case eventually makes its way to the California Supreme Court. Second, the Court does not hear new evidence from the parties; it only reviews the lower court proceedings and hears oral arguments to decide the constitutionality of a lower court decision. Thus, constrained by the facts of a specific case, justices will develop their opinions using the state constitution, existing laws, and prior cases, which function as precedents, and only then exercise their philosophies regarding what is just in a particular situation. The central philosophical divide is about the degree to which the Court should alter the interpretation of the California Constitution based on evolving beliefs about justice. Typically, a conservative justice follows precedent more, with liberal justices altering the understanding of the Constitution to fit changing times and values. In the twentieth century, a liberal California Supreme Court expanded constitutional protections such as civil liberties and rights. These labels of “conservative” or “liberal” are, of course, imposed on the justices by observers of the Court. By law, justices are nonpartisan and run for office in nonpartisan elections. A justice may see themselves as simply approaching each case using the best analytical framework appropriate for the facts of a case.
