The Supreme Court today denied review in Almond Alliance of California v. Fish and Game Commission, where the Third District Court of Appeal’s published opinion gained some notoriety by holding “the bumble bee, a terrestrial invertebrate, falls within the definition of fish [in the California Endangered Species Act].” But that’s not the only item of interest, at least from a Supreme Court perspective.

The Almond Alliance case drew Justice Patricia Guerrero’s first dissent. She recorded a vote to hear the case.

Also, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye issued a separate statement, signed by Justices Carol Corrigan and Joshua Groban. The Chief Justice reiterated the fundamental principle that the denial of review “does not communicate any particular view regarding the merits of the issues presented in the petition” and thus “is not an endorsement (nor is it a rejection) of the statutory analysis undertaken by the Court of Appeal.” With a bit of exasperation, she continued, “Yet if experience is any guide, our decision not to order review will be misconstrued by some as an affirmative determination by this court that under the law, bumble bees are fish.”

And she went on to generally defend the Court of Appeal’s opinion against charges of nuttiness, stating that “[c]areful analysis of a statute to divine legislative intent can sometimes yield results that might seem surprising at first blush” and that “seemingly illogical outcomes can in fact best capture the enacting legislature’s intent in a variety of circumstances.” Nudging the Legislature, she also wrote, “although it may not be exceptional for a court to determine that a particular word or phrase within a statute carries a meaning that deviates from common parlance or understanding, such decisions also can provide notice to legislators that some clarification may be in order.”

In 2015, Justice Goodwin Liu revived a long-dormant practice of issuing separate statements upon the court’s denial of review, and he has done so on a number of occasions since then.  (See here.)

In 2016, the Chief Justice wrote a separate statement about separate statements, joined by all the justices. (See here.) That statement explained how separate statements are to be publicized and said, “of course any separate statement represents the views solely of the authoring justice or any justice signing the statement” and the fact “a justice has not prepared, responded to, or joined a separate statement should not be read as reflecting the views of that justice concerning any separate statement that has been filed by any other justice.”