🎙️ SC oral arguments: FVAP v. Superior Court · electronic recording · June 3 📋 SC orders SB 73 briefing in Attorney General v. Bianco 🗳️ June 2 statewide direct primary · SB 73 in effect ⚖️ SC publishes four criminal opinions · June 1 🏛️ Newsom names four appellate justices · June 3 🌉 Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority · CEQA preclusion · June 5 🚶 Harland v. City of West Hollywood · sidewalk liability · June 2 📜 AB 882 pulled from Senate Judiciary calendar 🎙️ SC oral arguments: FVAP v. Superior Court · electronic recording · June 3 📋 SC orders SB 73 briefing in Attorney General v. Bianco 🗳️ June 2 statewide direct primary · SB 73 in effect ⚖️ SC publishes four criminal opinions · June 1 🏛️ Newsom names four appellate justices · June 3 🌉 Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority · CEQA preclusion · June 5 🚶 Harland v. City of West Hollywood · sidewalk liability · June 2 📜 AB 882 pulled from Senate Judiciary calendar

Sunday Edition · Access to justice · Week of June 1–7, 2026

The
Silent
Record

On June 3, California Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court — a case that could decide whether poor litigants may use electronic recording when no court reporter is available, despite a statutory ban that leaves more than a million civil hearings each year without any verbatim record.

0 Unreported civil hearings annually · per FVAP petition
California Supreme Court appears ready to expand electronic case recording — The Recorder, June 3, 2026

Supreme Court of California · original jurisdiction · oral argument June 3, 2026

Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court

No. S288176 · Covington & Burling for petitioners · SEIU for court reporters

Justice Carol Corrigan pressed counsel on what a final order should say. Wilson Sonsini partner Mark Yohalem, representing four trial courts, proposed that Government Code section 69957 "shall not operate as a bar" to electronic recording when a court-employed reporter is unavailable and a litigant cannot afford a private one. SEIU attorney Scott Kronland countered that courts should call freelance stenographers instead — prompting Corrigan to ask: "Have you ever tried to get a court reporter on 20 minutes notice?"

Attorney General Rob Bonta appeared as amicus in support of the legal aid groups. The court's single issue: whether the electronic-recording prohibition violates the California Constitution when an official reporter is unavailable and a litigant cannot pay for a private one. A ruling could reshape access to appellate review for domestic violence survivors, family law litigants, and indigent civil parties statewide.

Court Reporter Shortage — Family Violence Appellate Project

Access to justice · under the radar scale

0

FVAP and Bay Area Legal Aid filed their original writ petition in December 2024, citing Judicial Council data that chronic court reporter shortages leave over a million unlimited civil and family court hearings without any record each year — making appeals, subsequent proceedings, and judicial oversight "practically impossible" for litigants who cannot afford private stenographers.

The February 2025 order to show cause signaled the Supreme Court's willingness to confront the crisis directly. With AB 882 stalled in the Legislature this week, the justices' forthcoming opinion may be the only path to relief before the 2026–27 session recess.

California Supreme Court sets oral arguments in electronic case recording petition — The Recorder, May 14, 2026
Follow-up · SB 73

Election law · original jurisdiction · June 2026

Supreme Court orders briefing on SB 73's effect in Bianco ballot-seizure cases

Since last week's urgency signing of SB 73, the high court directed parties in both Attorney General v. Bianco and Cervantes v. Bianco to brief how the new election-safeguard statute affects the pending litigation over Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of more than 650,000 ballots from the November 2025 Proposition 50 election.

SB 73 signed · May 27SC briefing order · June 2026Bianco investigation paused
Supreme Court orders briefing on new election legislation in sheriff ballot seizure cases — Election Law Blog

Elections Code · June 2, 2026

Statewide direct primary proceeds under new election safeguards

Governor Newsom signs SB 73 with urgency clause — criminalizes unauthorized ballot seizure and restricts law enforcement access to voting systems without court orders.

Millions of Californians cast ballots in the statewide direct primary — the first major election conducted under SB 73's new protections against law enforcement interference with election administration.

County registrars report turnout under the new statutory framework as the Supreme Court separately considers how SB 73 applies to the Bianco seizure litigation still on its docket.

New California law bans law enforcement from interfering in state elections — Stocktonia News, June 2, 2026

Public records · Riverside County · unsealed this week

Search warrants reveal REIT overcount claims behind ballot seizure

Riverside County Superior Court ordered the search warrants unsealed after a coalition of media outlets — including the Southern California News Group — moved for access. The affidavits show Sheriff's Investigator Robert Castellanos credited disputed claims by the Riverside County Election Integrity Team of a 45,000-vote overcount that local and state election officials had forcefully rejected.

Registrar Art Tinoco disputed the group's analysis, placing the actual gap at 103 votes within the secretary of state's acceptable margin of error. Disputed claims drove GOP sheriff's ballot seizure, warrants show — San Francisco Chronicle

Newsom names four appellate justices and eleven trial judges

On June 3, Governor Gavin Newsom continued filling judicial vacancies, nominating four new Courts of Appeal justices across three districts and eleven superior court judges in seven counties — including four appointments to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

AppellateCharles Adams → Sixth District (Santa Clara Superior)
AppellatePlus three additional Courts of Appeal nominees
Trial11 new superior court judges · 7 counties
StatusCommission on Judicial Appointments confirmation pending
Newsom continues justice appointment spree, naming four to Courts of Appeal — The Recorder, June 3, 2026

Supreme Court · published June 1, 2026

The high court issued four published criminal opinions on Monday — a routine publication day that nonetheless adds statewide authority on sentencing, habeas, and post-conviction procedure.

S159120

People v. Demolle

Published criminal opinion · June 1, 2026

Judicial Branch
S105403

People v. Chhuon & Pan

Published criminal opinion · June 1, 2026

Judicial Branch
S103358

People v. Barrera

Published criminal opinion · June 1, 2026

Judicial Branch
S044739

People v. Bankston

Published criminal opinion · June 1, 2026

Judicial Branch

Legislature

AB 882

Assemblymember Diane Papan's SEIU-backed bill would have temporarily authorized electronic recording in civil proceedings when court reporters are unavailable — pulled from the Senate Judiciary Committee calendar this week, likely dead for the year.

Judiciary

With legislative relief stalled, the Supreme Court's pending ruling in FVAP v. Superior Court becomes the primary forum for resolving whether Government Code section 69957's recording ban violates constitutional access-to-justice guarantees when poor litigants cannot obtain a verbatim record by any other means.

California courts still jammed — CalMatters

CEQA · First District · published June 5, 2026

Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority — issue preclusion bars second CEQA challenge

Division One affirmed that Mark Baker could not relitigate statute-of-limitations arguments resolved against him in a prior unsuccessful CEQA action over the Bay Lights 360 project. The court held that a Caltrans encroachment permit and safety study were implementation steps for the same project — not a new CEQA undertaking that would restart the limitations clock.

Court holding: Issue preclusion bars relitigation when the party failed to appeal an adverse ruling on the same statute-of-limitations arguments in the first proceeding.
Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority, No. A174642 (Cal. Ct. App. June 5, 2026) — Judicial Branch of California

Government liability · Second District · June 2, 2026

Harland v. City of West Hollywood

Division Eight published B343375 on June 2 in a sidewalk trip-and-fall case — adding appellate authority on public-entity dangerous-condition claims under Government Code sections 830 and 835. Municipal liability counsel monitor these slips closely when evaluating trivial-defect defenses and notice requirements for pedestrian injuries on California sidewalks.

Harland v. City of West Hollywood, No. B343375 (Cal. Ct. App. June 2, 2026) — Judicial Branch of California
CA4
Div.
2
Jun
5

Juvenile dependency · Fourth District, Division Two

In re A.T.

Division Two published E086411 on June 5, continuing the appellate channel's output of certified juvenile dependency authority that children's counsel and dependency practitioners cite when calendaring WIC section 366.26 hearings, reunification services, and permanency planning across Southern California.

In re A.T., No. E086411 (Cal. Ct. App. June 5, 2026) — Judicial Branch of California

Employment · First District · published June 4, 2026

Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc.

Published slip A172921

Division Three added the opinion to the certified channel in a trucking-industry employment dispute — an under-the-radar data point for transportation counsel evaluating independent contractor classification, wage claims, and employer liability in California's logistics sector.

Niche precedent with statewide reach

While the week's headlines centered on the Supreme Court's recording arguments and the June primary, the steady cadence of published Court of Appeal slips continues to reshape practice in specialized dockets that rarely make front-page news.

Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc., No. A172921 (Cal. Ct. App. June 4, 2026) — Judicial Branch of California

The Week Ahead · June 8 – June 15, 2026

Dates to watch across California law

The post-primary week accelerates toward the June 15 constitutional budget deadline, Supreme Court publication days resume their Monday/Thursday rhythm, and briefing deadlines in the Bianco and death-penalty proceedings approach on the high court's docket.

Supreme Court opinion day

Monday publication cycle — watch for new certified opinions following this week's oral arguments in FVAP v. Superior Court and the June 1 criminal batch.

Published/Citable Opinions — Judicial Branch

Constitutional budget passage deadline

The Legislature must send a balanced budget to the Governor by June 15 — conference committees reconcile May Revision figures with AB 1563 appropriations and trailer-bill shells.

Assembly Bill 1563 — Budget Act of 2026

Governor's budget signing deadline

The Governor must sign the Budget Act by June 30 — trailer bills implementing statutory changes typically follow through the summer after the main appropriations measure passes.

California eBudget — Department of Finance
What is Legally Brief?