Overview Religious exemptions to mandatory vaccination programs may spark a revolution in religion jurisprudence. Existing U.S. Supreme Court religion doctrine should disfavor religious exemptions: under Employment Division v. Smith, a religious belief does not excuse compliance with neutral laws of general application.[1] And some state constitutions (like California’s) arguably bar giving religious individuals or organizations a benefit (like vaccination exemption) that is unavailable to others. But three factors may force an evolution here: federal law will not permit inquiry into sincerity; several high court justices seem ready to overturn Smith; and after Espinoza v. Montana state constitutions now arguably can’t...

Overview On March 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision in In re Humphrey (S247278). The case presented two key questions concerning bail: whether cash bail is unconstitutional, and how to resolve two apparently conflicting California constitutional provisions concerning bail. The decision answered the first question, and demurred on the second: The court held that pretrial detention based solely on a person’s inability to pay is unconstitutional. Because liberty is the norm in the criminal justice system, there is a fundamental right to bail, and bail may be denied only in narrow and unusual circumstances. Yet...

Overview As we continue the steady march toward full-scale reopening, colleges and universities across the country are preparing their return to in-person instruction in a post-pandemic world. Some colleges have announced that they will require students to be vaccinated before they return to campus, while California’s postsecondary institutions are assessing their public health safety plans for next fall. Yesterday the University of California and California State University announced that they will “require COVID-19 vaccinations for all students, faculty and staff on campus properties this fall once the Food and Drug Administration gives formal approval to the vaccines and supplies are...

Overview California voters passed Proposition 11 in 1972, which amended the state constitution to include a fundamental right to privacy. The ballot arguments expressed a clear voter intent to set a high bar for invaders to justify privacy invasions.[1] Yet the California Supreme Court misinterpreted Proposition 11, and all but abrogated the electorate’s intent when it instead set a low bar to justify privacy invasions. California’s constitutional privacy doctrine needs a reset: Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association should be disavowed, and privacy doctrine should return to something closer to what the voters intended with Proposition 11. Analysis How the...

Overview March 17, 2021 was the deadline for proponents seeking Governor Gavin Newsom’s recall to submit verified signatures to certify a recall election.[1] Assuming the proponents have met the requirements (which seems likely) Governor Newsom will face a recall election.[2] Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis and Secretary of State Shirley Weber will play key roles in that recall election, because California law provides limited instructions and broad discretion for their duties. This means that these two state officials will make decisions that could greatly shape the election process and the race for a potential successor. Analysis The road ahead If all...

 Overview The writ of mandate developed around 150 years ago to allow for judicial action when all else failed. Since then, its evolution has produced confused interpretations of the writ’s essential aspects. This article provides practical guidance for employing mandate and mandamus writs in California: which writ to bring, whether both would be appropriate and desirable, and how to anticipate the fact that a court always retains equitable discretion to deny a petition. This article concludes with a brief survey of structural changes that would do away with administrative mandamus and even the traditional writ of mandate altogether, save for...

Overview Although California voters may amend the constitution by initiative, they cannot use the initiative to revise it. This amendment–revision distinction could be an important limit on the electorate’s initiative power. But the California Supreme Court has used this doctrine to invalidate part of an initiative on only two occasions.[1] While the test for determining when an initiative is a revision is well-established, critics argue that it is inconsistently applied.[2] The problem is that the existing doctrine is incomplete: it asks only whether an initiative changed the state constitution’s “basic governmental plan or framework.”[3] Recent cases have clarified that this...