Back from summer break — a break, that is, just from oral arguments — the Supreme Court will hear five cases on its September calendar.

On September 2, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):

Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Department of Fish and Wildlife:  (1) Does the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.) supersede other California statutes that prohibit the taking of “fully protected” species, and allow such a taking if it is incidental to a mitigation plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)?  (2) Does the California Environmental Quality Act restrict judicial review to the claims presented to an agency before the close of the public comment period on a draft environmental impact report?  (3) May an agency deviate from the Act’s existing conditions baseline and instead determine the significance of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions by reference to a hypothetical higher “business as usual” baseline?
There are already a dozen amicus curiae briefs on file in this case, but, just three weeks ago, the court invited the Attorney General, “or an appropriate state agency to be identified by the Attorney General,” to file an amicus curiae brief “expressing the State of California’s views, to the extent those views are not already articulated in the briefs of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, on the following question:  May a comparative analysis modeled on the methodology employed by the California Air Resources Board in its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which compared statewide emissions goals to a statewide ‘business as usual’ scenario, properly be used under CEQA to evaluate the significance of an individual proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions?”
The court set a tight schedule for the Attorney General’s amicus brief and any responses.  The amicus brief is due August 7, the parties’ answer briefs are due 20 days later, and the court said it will grant no extensions.

B.H. v. County of San Bernardino:  (1) Does Penal Code section 11166, subdivision (k), create a mandatory duty requiring a law enforcement agency to cross-report to the relevant social services agency whenever it receives a report of known or suspected child abuse?  (2) If so, when is that duty triggered?  (3) Does Penal Code section 11166, subdivision (a), apply to law enforcement agencies that receive initial reports of child abuse?  (4) If so, what standard should be applied to determine whether a follow-up report is required?
As in the Center for Biological Diversity case, the court recently asked for additional briefing — this time just from the parties — and set a no-extensions briefing schedule.  Just yesterday, the court directed the parties to answer these questions:  (1) Do the reporting requirements of Penal Code section 11166, subdivision (a), apply to law enforcement officers who are investigating allegations of child abuse made by third parties and received by a law enforcement agency?  (2) If not, should Alejo v. City of Alhambra (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1180 be disapproved?

Larkin v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board:  Do the benefits provided under Labor Code section 4458.2 extend both to volunteer peace officers and to regularly sworn, salaried officers?

People v. Goolsby:  Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that Penal Code section 654 and Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822 prohibited retrying defendant on a lesser related offense, when the prosecution had not formally charged him with the lesser offense but the jury was instructed on it without objection?
Shortly after granting review, the court asked the parties to also brief these questions:  (1) Do the jury verdict and Court of Appeal opinion establish that defendant is guilty of violating Penal Code section 451, subdivision (b), which governs arson of “an inhabited structure or inhabited property?”  (2) If so, should defendant’s conviction for violating Penal Code section 451, subdivision (b), be affirmed?

People v. Cordova:  This is an automatic appeal from a May 2007 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
We haven’t checked, but arguing the case only eight years after the judgment might be setting a speed record for death penalty appeals.