Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero said “we would take action” if there are “any attempts . . . to prevent people from accessing the court,” including attempts by federal immigration agents during the next administration beginning tomorrow. Responding to questions last week at her second annual meeting with a number of reporters, a meeting attended by At The Lectern, the Chief Justice sounded less combative on the issue than her predecessor, but was firm in stating her intent to thwart actions that would “disrupt” the public’s right to physically attend judicial proceedings.
During the previous federal administration, then-Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye was a frequent critic of federal immigration actions in California’s courthouses that she said interfered with the administration of justice. Among many other public statements, Cantil-Sakauye wrote to the U.S. Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security accusing immigration agents of “stalking undocumented immigrants in our courthouses to make arrests” and asserting that the courts “should not be used as bait.” Courthouse immigration arrests “not only compromise our core value of fairness,” the letter stated, “but they undermine the judiciary’s ability to provide equal access to justice.” (See also here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Chief Justice Guerrero said that immigration issues “are top of mind for anyone who watches the news” and that “certainly we’re aware of the surrounding events,” but also that “it’s difficult to predict what may happen even looking at past practices.” She knows that the other branches of state government have already acted to counter anticipated adverse federal actions, but said “Trump-proof” “is not a term that I would use for the judicial branch.” Guerrero claimed that she is “not trying to pick fights with anybody” and that “we don’t seek to interfere in terms of federal enforcement.” Nonetheless, she stated, “we need to be prepared for any interruptions in court proceedings,” and she assured, “I am responsible for the administration of the courts and insuring that the public has the ability — whether you’re a witness, a victim, [or] one of the parties — to be able to freely go into court.”
In 2019, the Legislature — invoking California’s “reserved power under the Tenth Amendment to protect their proceedings, as well as the obligation under the United States Constitution to preserve California’s republican form of government” (Assembly Bill 668) — added a statute (Civ. Code section 43.54) providing, “A person shall not be subject to civil arrest in a courthouse while attending a court proceeding or having legal business in the courthouse,” other than “arrests made pursuant to a valid judicial warrant.” (See here.)
Additionally, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting officers from making civil immigration arrests at the federal courthouse. (Velazquez-Hernandez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (S.D. Cal. 2020) 500 F.Supp.3d 1132.) The court said the arrests “deter[ ] parties and witnesses from coming to court, instill[ ] fear, [are] inconsistent with the decorum of the court, and degrade[ ] the administration of justice.”
Guerrero mentioned both the legislation and the federal decision.
Other Issues. During her hour-long session, also attended by Judicial Council Administrative Director Shelley Curran, the Chief Justice answered questions on a variety of other topics, including:
Remote work at the Supreme Court
Guerrero disclosed that some justices — including she herself — sometimes participate remotely at the Supreme Court’s regular conferences to decide what cases the court will hear. She admitted she likes to see everyone in person, but said that all justices “are actively involved whether they’re in person or on the phone or on video conference” and that she doesn’t think remote conferencing “impairs the dialogue that we have.”
Remote conferencing gives the justices “flexibility,” the Chief Justice said, and “we give our staff the same [remote work] flexibility.” She said that each justice runs their own individual chambers, but noted the court has a policy of expecting staff to be in person for at least two days a week.
The Los Angeles fires and emergency preparedness
Noting that a “significant” number “of judicial officers and court staff . . . have lost their homes [in the recent Los Angeles-area fires], [both] on the trial court and the appellate court,” Guerrero said “our heart goes out to all of our court family that’s been impacted by this.”
The Chief Justice also noted that emergency preparedness in general “is something that Shelley and I have discussed from day one.” She specified “physical safety for our judicial officers” and “cyber security issues” as some areas of concern, but said “it’s difficult to predict all of the bad things that could happen.”
Criticism of the courts
Guerrero said “it’s important for the public to be able to criticize the work of all branches of government, including the judiciary,” but she doesn’t like politicizing the criticism, such as when judges are associated with the governor or president who has appointed them “in a way that suggests that the decision will automatically reflect a certain outcome.” She thinks that people might not “understand fully that we’re not here to make policy and make decisions based on what we think the outcome should be or should not be based on our own political preferences.”
Update:
Media coverage of the Chief Justice’s meeting includes:
Chief Justice won’t ‘pick a fight’ with Trump, would act if courts affected, by Malcolm Maclachlan in the Daily Journal
California’s Chief Justice Starts Third Year With Questions About Fires, Trump and AI, by Cheryl Miller in The Recorder
California Chief Justice Says Social Media Harms Civic Discourse, by Isaiah Poritz for Bloomberg
Calif.’s Chief Justice On Preparing For Trump, AI, by Bonnie Eslinger for Law360
Fire Aid for L.A. Judges Is Limited Under Ethics Rules on Gifts, by Maia Spoto for Bloomberg
