The Honorable Tani Cantil-Sakauye led the state judiciary through the Great Recession's budget crisis, bail reform advocacy, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Now she has three new roles: President and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, a neutral at ADR Services, and a founding voice of the Alliance of Former Chief Justices.
CJ Cantil-Sakauye talks with Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis about what actually gets petitions for review granted. If the Supreme Court’s job is not to correct errors, then what is it?
- The justices look for issues that surface conflict, systemic mischief, or other need to weigh in to avoid broader problems.
- So how do you find those issues? Each justice has a mental list—sometimes those are visible in their concurrences and dissents.
- Other places to look: amicus briefs from government entities.
CJ Cantil-Sakauye also addresses why her Court viewed depublication as heavy-handed and preferred granting review to provide legal explanation
And why grant-and-transfer requires diplomatic restraint to avoid appearing to rebuke Court of Appeal colleagues.
We also discuss:
- Why rescue missions almost always fail
- Why Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye's court limited depublication to the rarest circumstances and changed the rules to keep granted cases citable
- The mediation stumbling blocks she encounters when trial counsel defends the trial record instead of negotiating settlement
- How COVID permanently transformed access to justice through electronic filing and remote appearances
- The structural tension created by California's legislative control over civil procedure, unlike most states where supreme courts govern procedural rules
What’s the biggest factor you think makes the California Supreme Court take a case?
Other items discussed in the episode:
