The Supreme Court almost never grants rehearings. However, when a retired justice is replaced, the conditions can be right for making a rehearing petition worthwhile. That happens when the retired justice or a pro tem justice is a deciding vote on a case and a new justice is confirmed before expiration of the time for granting rehearing. (It’s the new justice who votes on a rehearing petition. Why? Because that’s the way the court has always done it.) We call these transition rehearings, which occur occasionally. (See here and here.)
There will be no transition rehearings with the seating of the newest justice, Joshua Groban. During the many months that former Justice Kathryn Werdegar’s seat was vacant, there was only one 4-3 case with a pro tem justice in the majority, but the time to grant rehearing expired long before Justice Groban was appointed. And yesterday, the court filed its last two opinions — both unanimous — with pro tems sitting in for Justice Werdegar. (Here and here.)
So, until the next new justice joins the court, one of the safest bets there can be is that the Supreme Court will deny rehearing whenever it’s asked.
[March 7 update: I just noticed there’s still one undecided case that could be a transition rehearing candidate — People v. Potts, a death penalty appeal that was argued on the November calendar with First District, Division Five, Court of Appeal Justice Mark Simons sitting pro tem. The court delayed submission of the case until supplemental briefing was finished well after oral argument, so the opinion can be filed by March 28 and still be within the 90-day period. Don’t actually expect a transition rehearing in Potts, however. The court seemed to be consciously avoiding scheduling arguments in cases where a pro tem might cast a deciding vote.]