Year in Review: California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court’s work during the 2024–2025 court year took the justices around the state. The court heard oral argument in all three of its traditional courtrooms—sitting in Sacramento for the first time since 2020—and conducted a special oral argument session in Fresno. The decisions that followed addressed a broad array of issues, and included several opinions interpreting recent changes to the state’s criminal laws.

“I am proud of what we achieved as a court over the past year, and I am grateful to my fellow justices and court staff for their contributions,” said Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. “Fair and impartial interpretation of the law continues to be our guiding principle.”

The Work of the Court

The court heard oral argument in 52 cases and issued 45 written majority opinions during the September 2024–August 2025 court year (see chart and “High-Profile Cases” below). Seven argued matters remained pending at the end of the court year due to supplemental briefing after oral argument.

The court received 6,003 filings, including 3,542 petitions for review, and resolved 5,844 filings, including 3,379 petitions for review. Both criminal and civil filings increased relative to the previous year, in which the court received 5,013 filings, including 3,079 petitions for review.

The Court Returns to Sacramento

The court hears oral argument in February 2025 in its Sacramento courtroom.

In February 2025, the court heard oral argument in its Sacramento courtroom for the first time since 2020. Technology upgrades were made to the Sacramento courtroom during this interval to facilitate livestreaming and remote oral arguments, similar to improvements that also have been made to the court’s San Francisco and Los Angeles courtrooms.

The court’s tradition of convening in Sacramento as one of three recurring locations for oral argument dates to 1878. The court resumed hearing cases in Los Angeles in December 2023 following a hiatus caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also continued its practice of conducting special oral argument sessions in locations across the state. These special sessions provide students and other members of the public with opportunities to witness oral argument at nearby venues and learn more about the court’s work. The October 2024 session took place at the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno and was attended by local public school and law students. The October 2025 oral argument is scheduled to take place in Monterey.

Boosting Bar Exam Oversight

Citing troubling reports of technical failures, delays, and other irregularities in the administration of the February 2025 California Bar Exam, the court took several steps to increase oversight of the exam and to provide relief to impacted applicants.

The court approved various scoring adjustments to address the technological disruptions experienced by many applicants. The court also approved an expansion of the Provisional License Program to include February applicants, limiting eligibility to first-time takers who either failed the exam or withdrew from the exam. These applicants may now practice law under a provisional license, provided they are supervised by an eligible California attorney.

The court additionally proposed several amendments to rules governing the bar exam and attorney admission in order to strengthen and clarify the authority of the Committee of Bar Examiners over future changes to the exam and its role over attorney admissions. Following a public comment period and joint review by the examiners and the State Bar Board of Trustees, the court last month adopted rule amendments largely reflecting the court’s proposal.

Amendments to Court Policies and Rules

Staying abreast of recent changes in the law, including the enactment of the Racial Justice Act of 2020 and subsequent amendments to that statute, in January and June 2025 the court approved amendments to its policies describing the responsibilities of counsel appointed by the court to represent condemned inmates in automatic appeals or death penalty-related postconviction proceedings, as well as amendments to the court’s guidelines regarding compensation for this work.

In August, the court adopted amendments to its electronic filing (e-filing) rules that incorporate and clarify the broadened e-filing requirements that were originally implemented through guidelines issued at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In Memoriam: Justice Joseph Grodin

Former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin died in April, at age 94. Justice Grodin served on the state high court from 1982 to 1987.

Said Chief Justice Guerrero: “Justice Joseph R. Grodin was a brilliant jurist whose contributions to California’s legal system — as a labor lawyer, Supreme Court justice, and professor — continue to resonate. Throughout his distinguished career, he exemplified a dedication to justice, fairness, and the rule of law. His thoughtful opinions and commitment to civil rights shaped the landscape of our state’s jurisprudence. As we mourn his passing, we honor his enduring legacy and the profound impact he had on our judiciary.”

The court will recognize Justice Grodin and his contributions to California’s justice system at its November 2025 oral argument session.

High-Profile Cases 

Image

Decisions issued by the court during the 2024–2025 court year addressed an extensive range of issues arising under state and federal law. The following are summaries of six cases that illustrate the court’s work over the past year.

In Brown v. City of Inglewood, the court determined that an elected city treasurer could not bring a civil claim alleging retaliatory conduct by city council members under a Labor Code provision that protects whistleblowing employees from reprisals by their employers. Upon reviewing the statutory text, the legislative history, laws addressing analogous subjects, and relevant public policy considerations, the court’s unanimous opinion reasoned that insofar as the antiretaliation statute extends to public employees, it is concerned with claims by “rank-and-file public workers” and did not provide a cause of action to the treasurer, an elected official ultimately answerable to voters.

In EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court, the court considered the validity of forum selection clauses, in which parties agree by contract to litigate in a specific state or other jurisdiction. The court unanimously held that forum selection clauses “serve vital commercial purposes and should generally be enforced,” but it cautioned that courts should consider whether enforcement of any specific forum selection clause requiring litigation outside California would violate a strong or fundamental public policy of California. At issue in EpicentRx was enforcement of a forum selection clause in favor of the Delaware Court of Chancery, which one party argued would violate California’s strong public policy in favor of the right to a civil jury trial because the Delaware court does not recognize such a right. The court disagreed and held that “[a] forum selection clause is not unenforceable simply because it requires the parties to litigate in a jurisdiction that does not afford civil litigants the same right to trial by jury as litigants in California courts enjoy.” Nonetheless, the court did not foreclose the possibility that the forum selection clause might run afoul of some other public policy, and it remanded the matter to the lower courts for further proceedings on that question.

In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the court decided by a 5-2 vote that federal law does not preempt a default rule under state law that the party responsible for drafting an arbitration agreement must pay the arbitrator’s fees and costs within 30 days of receiving the arbitrator’s invoice. The majority opinion rejected arguments that the state statute subjects arbitration agreements to a uniquely exacting standard and interferes with fundamental aspects of arbitration. The majority held that the law, construed “in harmony with background statutes and principles that allow relief from forfeiture where nonperformance is not willful, fraudulent, or grossly negligent,” merely “makes arbitration contracts enforceable on the same grounds as those that apply to other contracts” and “simplifies payment procedures with a clearer rule.”

In Olympic and Georgia Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, the court concluded, with three justices concurring and dissenting, that a local property tax valuation of a hotel properly included both occupancy tax revenues that had been assigned to the property owner as an incentive to build the property and a one-time payment made by a hotel management company to the owner in exchange for management and branding rights. The majority opinion explained that “both payments derive from a type of intangible asset that effectively enable the property itself — as opposed to the business operating the property — to generate more revenue.”

In People v. Fletcher, the court considered the interaction between criminal sentencing laws targeting recidivist offenders and subsequent ameliorative legislation. The criminal sentencing laws that were at issue, the Three Strikes law and the prior serious felony enhancement statute, are triggered by a prior serious felony conviction for certain gang-related offenses, while the ameliorative legislation, the STEP Forward Act of 2021, imposed new requirements for proving that criminal offenses are gang-related. The court, by a 4-3 vote, held that the STEP Forward Act applied to the determination of whether a prior conviction is gang-related, meaning that a prior conviction must meet the new requirements of the STEP Forward Act in order to qualify as a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of the Three Strikes law and the prior serious felony enhancement statute.

In People v. Patton, the court interpreted a recently enacted statute that abrogates certain theories of homicide liability and creates an avenue for resentencing defendants affected by this change. It unanimously decided that “a court, in determining at the prima facie stage whether a petitioner was convicted under a now-invalid theory,” can “rely on unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts within a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory, checkbox allegations” within a petition. The court concluded that such reliance did not “constitute impermissible judicial factfinding,” explaining that “petitioners confronting a record of conviction that demonstrates relief is unavailable have the burden of coming forward with nonconclusory allegations to alert the prosecution and the court to what issues an evidentiary hearing would entail.” The court noted, however, “that should a trial court encounter a material fact dispute, the court may not resolve that dispute at the prima facie stage and should instead grant petitioner an evidentiary hearing, assuming relief is not otherwise foreclosed.”

Summary of Key Court Year Statistics (pdf)
[September 1, 2024 – August 31, 2025]