Last week, Justice Joshua Groban filed a statement dissenting from the Supreme Court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition. Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans signed on. That’s important, but having the bench, bar, and general public know about it is problematic.

Separate statements when the court denies a petition — a long-dormant practice revived by Justice Liu in 2015 — are not published in the court’s official reports. That’s different from how the U.S. Supreme Court operates. (See, e.g., Callins v. Collins (1994) 510 U.S. 1143, 1145 (Blackmun, J.) [“From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death”].) In California, the statements are attached at the end of the Court of Appeal’s opinion, which is then reposted on the California Courts opinions webpage. The reposted opinion includes a notation meant to attract the attention of online publishers like Westlaw and Lexis.

The glitch with the most recent separate statement is that there was no Court of Appeal opinion to which to attach the statement. The denied habeas petition was filed in the Supreme Court in the first instance.

Justice Groban’s statement does appear on the court’s online docket, but it’s not reader-friendly — among other things, footnotes and text run together. It will also appear in the court’s minutes. And Westlaw has published it online, but with a statement that it won’t be reported in the California Reporter books.

This isn’t quite the equivalent of a tree falling in the forest with nobody around, but it should be easier to hear the sound of a Supreme Court justice’s voice. Separate statements should be published in the Supreme Court’s official reports, as we’ve said before.