California Appellate Justices
Justices of the Supreme Court of California
The Supreme Court of California is the state's highest court. It sits in San Francisco and also hears argument in Los Angeles and Sacramento, decides which Court of Appeal decisions to review, hears automatic appeals in death-penalty cases, and exercises original writ jurisdiction. The court has seven seats.
Current composition. One seat has been vacant since Justice Martin J. Jenkins retired on October 31, 2025; as of the roster date the Governor had not named a successor, and Court of Appeal justices sit by assignment to fill the seventh position case by case.
Roster verified as of August 30, 2026 against the court's official list of justices. Members of the Supreme Court of California are addressed as Justice; the presiding member is the Chief Justice of California.
Why These Pages Link to Dissents
Appellate courts speak through majority opinions, which must express the view of the panel. A separately written dissent speaks for its author alone. In my experience, that is why dissents are often where a justice explains his or her own reasoning most directly — the treatment of precedent, the reading of a statute, the weight given to procedure. These pages collect published opinions in which each justice dissented, with a short neutral note on what the majority held, and link to the full opinions so that readers can draw their own conclusions. A dissent is not controlling authority, and nothing here predicts how any justice will decide a future case. Some judges rarely write separately; where no published dissenting opinion has been identified for a judge, these pages say so rather than imply that one exists.
Thomas Ogden, Esq.
Certified Specialist in Appellate Law
State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero
Chief Justice of California, Supreme Court of California
Sworn in as the 29th Chief Justice of California on January 2, 2023, after nomination by Governor Gavin Newsom and unanimous confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments; approved by voters in November 2022. Joined the court as an Associate Justice in March 2022. Previously Associate Justice of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One (2017–2022) and a judge of the San Diego Superior Court (2013–2017), where she supervised the family law division; earlier an associate and equity partner at Latham & Watkins and an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California. Chairs the Judicial Council of California and the Commission on Judicial Appointments.
Selected published opinions in which Chief Justice Guerrero dissented
-
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 Sentencing / harmless error
The court held that when a trial court imposed an upper-term sentence without the jury findings later required by Senate Bill 567, a reviewing court applies the Chapman harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in deciding whether a nonfinal case must be remanded for resentencing.
Chief Justice Guerrero dissented. Read the full opinion
-
In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 Juvenile dependency / ICWA
The court held that a child welfare agency's failure to conduct an adequate initial inquiry into a child's possible Indian ancestry under the Indian Child Welfare Act and California law requires conditional reversal of the order terminating parental rights so that the inquiry can be completed.
Chief Justice Guerrero joined the dissenting opinion. Read the full opinion
Justice Carol A. Corrigan
Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California
Appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in December 2005 and confirmed in January 2006; retained by voters, most recently in 2018. Previously an Associate Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, a judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, and a judge of the Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville Municipal Court; earlier a deputy district attorney in Alameda County. A voting member of the Judicial Council of California; co-chaired the council's Task Force on Jury Instructions.
Selected published opinions in which Justice Corrigan dissented
-
In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 Constitutional law / equal protection
The court held that California statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the state constitution's guarantees of equal protection and privacy.
Justice Corrigan concurred in part and dissented in part. Proposition 8 (November 2008) amended the state constitution to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples; Proposition 8 was later held unconstitutional in federal litigation and was repealed by voters in 2024. Read the full opinion
-
In re Zamudio Jimenez (2010) 50 Cal.4th 951 Habeas corpus / capital cases
In a companion to In re Morgan, the court considered so-called "shell" habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of capital prisoners to preserve filing timelines before counsel is prepared to file a complete petition, and approved the practice as presented.
Justice Corrigan concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Corrigan concurred in the disposition and dissented from the holding approving shell petitions, for the reasons stated in her separate opinion in In re Morgan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 932. Read the full opinion
-
Reilly v. Marin Housing Authority (2020) 10 Cal.5th 583 Housing / statutory interpretation
The court held that In-Home Supportive Services payments a mother received for caring for her disabled adult daughter were excluded from income when calculating the family's Section 8 housing assistance.
Justice Corrigan joined the dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, joined by Justices Corrigan and Kruger. Read the full opinion
Justice Kelli M. Evans
Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California
Nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom in August 2022, confirmed unanimously by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on November 10, 2022, and sworn in on January 2, 2023. Previously a judge of the Alameda County Superior Court (2021–2023) and an attorney in the Governor's office advising on public safety, criminal justice, and civil rights matters; earlier a Sacramento County public defender, an attorney and associate director at the ACLU of Northern California, an attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, and a State Bar administrative official. Degrees from Stanford University and UC Davis School of Law.
Selected published opinions in which Justice Evans dissented
-
People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791 Criminal procedure / mental health diversion
The court held that a request for pretrial mental health diversion must be made before the case is tried; a defendant is not eligible to seek diversion after conviction.
Justice Evans dissented. Justice Liu joined the dissent. Read the full opinion
-
People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834 Sentencing / equal protection
The court held that the youth offender parole statute's exclusion of young adults sentenced to life without parole does not violate equal protection, applying rational basis review.
Justice Evans dissented. Justice Liu filed a separate dissenting opinion. Read the full opinion
Justice Joshua P. Groban
Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California
Nominated by Governor Jerry Brown in November 2018, confirmed unanimously by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on December 21, 2018, and sworn in on January 3, 2019; retained by voters in 2022. Previously senior advisor to Governor Brown overseeing judicial appointments and advising on litigation and policy; attorney at Munger, Tolles & Olson (2005–2010) and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (1999–2005); law clerk to Judge William C. Conner of the Southern District of New York. Lecturer in state appellate practice at UCLA School of Law. Degrees from Stanford and Harvard Law School.
Selected published opinions in which Justice Groban dissented
-
In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 Juvenile dependency / ICWA
The court held that a child welfare agency's failure to conduct an adequate initial inquiry into a child's possible Indian ancestry under the Indian Child Welfare Act and California law requires conditional reversal of the order terminating parental rights so that the inquiry can be completed.
Justice Groban dissented. Chief Justice Guerrero joined the dissent. Read the full opinion
-
Needham v. Superior Court (2024) 16 Cal.5th 333 Civil commitment / SVPA
The court held that in a Sexually Violent Predator Act proceeding the prosecution may call its retained expert to testify at trial, but that expert may not compel the defendant to be interviewed or tested before commitment.
Justice Groban concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Liu joined the concurring and dissenting opinion. Read the full opinion
-
People v. Brown (2023) 14 Cal.5th 530 Criminal procedure / continuances
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the prosecution's request for a continuance.
Justice Groban concurred in part and dissented in part. Justices Liu and Evans joined the concurring and dissenting opinion. Read the full opinion
Justice Leondra R. Kruger
Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California
Appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in November 2014, confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on December 22, 2014, and sworn in on January 5, 2015; retained by voters in 2018. Previously Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (2013–2014) and Assistant to the Solicitor General and Acting Principal Deputy Solicitor General (2007–2013), arguing twelve cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens and Judge David Tatel. Degrees from Harvard College and Yale Law School.
Selected published opinions in which Justice Kruger dissented
-
People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415 Proposition 47 / statutory interpretation
The court held that when Proposition 47 reduces to a misdemeanor the felony that served as the basis for a conviction for active participation in a criminal street gang, the gang conviction cannot stand.
Justice Kruger dissented. Read the full opinion
-
People v. Raybon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1056 Proposition 64 / statutory interpretation
The court held that Proposition 64's legalization of adult cannabis possession did not repeal the Penal Code provision that makes possession of cannabis in prison a felony.
Justice Kruger concurred in part and dissented in part. Read the full opinion
-
California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924 Taxation / constitutional law
The court held that the state constitutional requirement that a local general tax be submitted to voters at a general election applies to taxes proposed by local governments, not to taxes proposed by voter initiative.
Justice Kruger concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Liu joined the concurring and dissenting opinion. Read the full opinion
-
Reilly v. Marin Housing Authority (2020) 10 Cal.5th 583 Housing / statutory interpretation
The court held that In-Home Supportive Services payments a mother received for caring for her disabled adult daughter were excluded from income when calculating the family's Section 8 housing assistance.
Justice Kruger joined the dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, joined by Justices Corrigan and Kruger. Read the full opinion
Justice Goodwin H. Liu
Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California
Nominated by Governor Jerry Brown, confirmed unanimously by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, and sworn in on September 1, 2011; retained by voters in 2014 and 2022. Previously Professor of Law and Associate Dean at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Clerked for Judge David Tatel of the D.C. Circuit and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court; practiced appellate litigation at O'Melveny & Myers; served as Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. Degrees from Stanford, Oxford (Rhodes Scholar), and Yale Law School.
Selected published opinions in which Justice Liu dissented
-
People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834 Sentencing / equal protection
The court held that the youth offender parole statute's exclusion of young adults sentenced to life without parole does not violate equal protection, applying rational basis review.
Justice Liu dissented. Justice Evans filed a separate dissenting opinion. Read the full opinion
-
People v. Williams (2024) 17 Cal.5th 99 Sentencing / equal protection
The court held that excluding young adults sentenced under the One Strike law from youth offender parole consideration does not violate equal protection because the Legislature could rationally rely on recidivism concerns and the aggravated nature of the offenses.
Justice Liu dissented. Read the full opinion
-
Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (2025) __ Cal.5th __ (Nov. 10, 2025) First Amendment
The court held that Penal Code section 148.6, which criminalized knowingly false complaints of peace officer misconduct and required complainants to sign an advisory to that effect, violates the First Amendment because it burdens protected speech by deterring truthful complaints.
Justice Liu dissented. Official reporter citation to be added at the next audit. Read the full opinion
-
Needham v. Superior Court (2024) 16 Cal.5th 333 Civil commitment / SVPA
The court held that in a Sexually Violent Predator Act proceeding the prosecution may call its retained expert to testify at trial, but that expert may not compel the defendant to be interviewed or tested before commitment.
Justice Liu joined the concurring and dissenting opinion. Read the full opinion
About these pages
Court composition changes through appointment, retirement, and elevation, and the panel that hears a particular matter may include justices sitting by assignment. Nothing on this page predicts how any justice will decide a future case, and a dissent is not controlling authority. Read the note on method.