Loyola Law School Professor Laurie Levenson writes in a Los Angeles Times op-ed about the pending Humphrey case, where the Supreme Court could weigh in on the constitutionality of California’s cash bail system. She says the case involves “[f]undamental constitutional tenets — the presumption of innocence and the related principle that a person cannot be punished for a crime until convicted.”
Levenson also notes that Humphrey might test the usually unanimous high court: “For a court that tries hard to achieve consensus, this case may present a challenge. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has publicly criticized the money bail system, and Associate Justice Joshua Groban, the newest member of the court, has not previously ruled on bail issues.”
The op-ed says the case is expected to come before the court this year. That might be optimistic. The court has yet to send an oral argument letter in Humphrey and the letter usually precedes a hearing by several months. Also, it’s possible the court will wait to see the results of a November 2020 referendum on legislation that would eliminate cash bail and might cause dismissal of review in Humphrey on mootness grounds.
Related:
Supreme Court will address constitutionality of California’s cash bail system
A possible reason the Chief Justice shouldn’t recuse herself from hearing the bail cases