The Supreme Court today announced the cases it will hear on the first day of its October calendar. This day is the latest installment of the court’s law school road show, as the court convenes at the University of California Berkeley Law School. The special oral argument session follows soon after a conference at the school about the Supreme Court.

The court will return home after its Berkeley session for another day of arguments. As when the court split its February calendar between the University of San Francisco School of Law and its courthouse, the court will announce later the second day of its October arguments.

On October 9, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue(s) presented as stated on the court’s website):

Sander v. State Bar of California: (1) What ground, if any, exists for finding that the information sought by plaintiffs is information that is subject to public disclosure? (2) What is the effect, if any, of the representation of confidentiality made by the State Bar to the individuals from whom the information was collected? (3) Does the form in which the requested information is regularly maintained affect whether the State Bar must provide the requested information?

The statement of issues masks the controversial nature of the Sander case, which has attracted substantial amicus curiae participation. As explained in the Court of Appeal opinion, the plaintiff is a UCLA law professor who wants the bar to disclose demographic information so he can “conduct academic research on discrepancies in bar passage rates among racial and ethnic groups.”

Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC: The court will answer this question from an en banc Ninth Circuit panel — Does California Civil Code section 2527 compel speech in violation of article I, section 2 of the California Constitution? The statute requires drug claims processors to generate studies about pharmacy pricing, summarize the results, and disseminate the information to their clients.

People v. Contreras: [This is an automatic direct appeal from a December 1996 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.]