California Supreme Court reins in 'blanket' challenges against judges

(CN) — The California Supreme Court reversed track Thursday on allowing so-called blanket challenges that seek to exclude a particular judge from hearing all or most cases assigned to them on a bad faith basis.

In a unanimous decision, the state’s top court said the abuse of this practice is undermining the independence of the judiciary.

“If a party does not like a ruling made by a particular judge, blanket abuses of section 170.6 give the party the power to essentially force the presiding judge to reassign the judge or, at a minimum, to sideline the judge from a particularassignment until the party decides that the judge is acceptable,” Justice Joshua Groban wrote, referring to the California Code of Civil Procedure.

“The mere threat of blanket abuses could cause litigants to question the impartiality of the judicial system as a whole, as they may be understandably concerned that judges might feel pressure to rule in a particular manner to avoid reassignment,” he added.

Rather than automatically granting a bid to disqualify a judge based on a sworn statement that they are somehow prejudiced, the opposing side will now have an opportunity to bring a prima facia objection that the motion’s proponent is lodging bad faith blanket challenges against a particular judge.

While the California Supreme Court reaffirmed its strong disapproval of blanket challenges in 1977, it nevertheless concluded such abuses didn’t violate the separation of powers doctrine because they didn’t substantially impair the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of the trial courts, Groban said.

Nearly 50 years later, however, abuses of the opportunity to automatically disqualify a judge by claiming they are prejudiced — without having to back up the assertion — have created an outsized impact on the judiciary’s duty to effectively administer justice, the judge said.

Not only has the workload of California’s courts expanded dramatically since then, the role of specialty courts like juvenile dependency court and family court has become increasingly prominent.

“There have also been countless changes in the law since 1977 that similarly require judicial specialization,” Groban wrote. “Blanket abuses of section 170.6 can materially undermine the effort to assign judges to courtrooms who possess particularized knowledge and training regarding these changes.”

The case before the California Supreme Court began in 2024 when San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Erin Guy Castillo admonished a county attorney for purportedly improper conduct.

In response, the county moved to disqualify Guy Castillo about 325 times in conservatorship cases over a span of less than four months. In the end, the judge had to be reassigned to a different department.

An individual, only identified by their initials J.O., challenged the county’s disqualification of Guy Castillo, but struck out at the Superior Court and the California Court of Appeals due to the binding 1977 decision by the Supreme Court.

“We are very pleased with the decision of the California Supreme Court, which ends the abuse of blanket judicial challenges exercised in bad faith,” said San Joaquin County Public Defender Judyanne Vallado, whose office represents the petitioner. “The court’s decision today strikes a delicate balance between protecting parties from prejudice or discrimination and ensuring that judicial officers maintain their independence in decision making.”

In another notorious case cited in Thursday’s ruling, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office challenged Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals in 46 out of 49 murder cases that were assigned to him in 2014 and 2015 after the judge found prosecutors committed misconduct in a high-profile murder case.

When another judge rebuffed the district attorney’s bid to disqualify Goethals from yet another case, the Court of Appeals overturned the ruling but implored the Supreme Court to review whether abuse of the disqualification process was impeding justice.

“In sum, given how the California judicial system has evolved since 1977, blanket abuses of section 170.6 now unconstitutionally interfere with the effective administration of justice — a core judicial function of court administration — by permitting a party to unilaterally decide, for improper reasons, that a judge cannot oversee all or a substantial portion of cases, or all or a substantial portion of cases of a particular type, to which he or she is assigned,” Groban said.

Representatives of the San Joaquin County Office of the County Counsel didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Follow @edpettersson