# Justice Joshua Groban *legal · California Supreme Court retention · judge* — November 3, 2026 General Election (2026-11-03), Los Angeles County, California Research pack generated 2026-10-30T23:52:30+00:00 by ballotscope. Summaries are LLM-generated from the linked originals and may contain errors; check the originals before relying on anything. Sources span 2018-12-19 to 2026-10-07. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 22 sources) Joshua Groban has served on the California Supreme Court since January 2019, appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown after eight years as Brown's senior advisor overseeing more than 600 judicial appointments and a decade in private civil litigation [Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban; California voter guide 2026: Supreme Court]. He was retained in 2022 for an unexpired term ending January 2027 and now seeks a 12-year term [Supreme Court justices on the ballot]. His stored opinions are mostly unanimous criminal decisions: he affirmed a death sentence in full in People v. Ng (2022) [People v. Ng (S080276)], and in Cooper (2023), Salazar (2023) and Morris (2026) he read new ameliorative statutes strictly in defendants' favor [People v. Cooper (S273134); People v. Salazar (S275788); People v. Morris (S284751)]. His most consequential recent opinion, J.O. v. Superior Court (May 2026), partly overruled a 1977 precedent to let courts police bad-faith blanket challenges to judges [J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF]. In a 2020 interview he described the court as deciding 'questions of pure law,' not correcting errors, and said 'our courts should look like the communities they serve' [A Conversation With California Supreme Court Justice Joshua P. Groban]. No organized campaign against his retention was found, and he has no public discipline record [California Supreme Court Retention — November 2026 Election]. ### Record highlights - July 2022: wrote the unanimous People v. Ng opinion affirming 11 first degree murder convictions and a death sentence, rejecting every claim [S6]. [People v. Ng (S080276)] - May 2023: wrote unanimous People v. Cooper, reversing a gang enhancement because the jury was not instructed on AB 333's new 'more than reputational' benefit element [S8]. [People v. Cooper (S273134)] - August 2023: concurred in People v. Gray to stress that potential emotional harm to a witness, such as a domestic-violence victim, can count toward good cause for not producing her at a probation revocation hearing [S9]. [People v. Gray (S269237) with Groban concurrence] - November 2023: wrote unanimous People v. Salazar, ordering resentencing under SB 567's lower-term presumption because the record did not clearly show the trial court would impose the same sentence [S10]. [People v. Salazar (S275788)] - February 2024: filed a statement, joined by Justices Liu and Evans, dissenting from the denial of a habeas petition; its content is not in the sources [S11]. [Groban statement dissenting from denial of habeas petition] - May 2026: wrote People v. Morris (5-1-1), holding that a nonkiller who intended to kill is liable for felony murder only if he aided the actual killer in the lethal act [S13]. [People v. Morris (S284751)] - May 2026: wrote unanimous J.O. v. Superior Court, overruling Solberg (1977) in part and creating a Batson-style test for bad-faith blanket section 170.6 challenges [S14, S17, S18]. [J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF; CA Supreme Court narrows ability to force blanket judge recusals; California Supreme Court Permits Judicial Scrutiny Of Blanket Peremptory Challenges To Judges] - Through 2021 he wrote 17 opinions, including one civil dissent; in the 2024-25 term he wrote five majority opinions and one concurrence [S5, S12]. [Reviewing the Tenure of Justice Joshua Groban (Part 2 of 6); The 2024-2025 term in numbers - the 45 opinions] ### Stated positions - In 2020 he said the Supreme Court is 'not a court of error correction' and grants review mainly for splits among lower courts or issues of statewide importance [S1]. [A Conversation With California Supreme Court Justice Joshua P. Groban] - In 2020 he said his first rule is 'try and get it right,' that he hires clerks who will disagree with him, and that collegiality makes it easier to write separately [S1]. [A Conversation With California Supreme Court Justice Joshua P. Groban] - In 2020 he said judges should reflect the communities they serve, in demographics and in practice background [S1]. [A Conversation With California Supreme Court Justice Joshua P. Groban] - In J.O. (2026) he wrote that the court does 'not lightly depart' from precedent but that Solberg was no longer tenable given caseload growth, judge shortages and specialization [S14, S17]. [J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF; CA Supreme Court narrows ability to force blanket judge recusals] ### Where sources disagree - The number of blanket challenges in J.O. is given as about 325 [S14, S17] and as 'over 300' [S18], all based on the petitioner's allegations. [J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF; CA Supreme Court narrows ability to force blanket judge recusals; California Supreme Court Permits Judicial Scrutiny Of Blanket Peremptory Challenges To Judges] ### Gaps - No source opposes his retention; criticism is limited to commentary on particular opinions. - No current bar evaluation; the 'exceptionally well qualified' rating dates from 2018, and one stored evaluation link captured the wrong page [S3, S4]. - The text of his 2024 habeas dissent and of his civil dissent through 2021 is not in the sources. - Little coverage of his civil, business or administrative-law opinions. - No statements of his own since 2020 outside his opinions. ### Arguments for / praise - Retain: no serious misconduct or poor judgment, no public discipline record, and no organized opposition. — *GrowSF* [California Supreme Court Retention — November 2026 Election] - Retain: his record is clean and neither his 2024 habeas statement nor J.O. seems problematic. — *Daniel Faigin (cahighways.org)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] - J.O. was the right result, reached unanimously ('Well done'), and makes blanket papering of judges substantially harder. — *Shaun Martin (California Appellate Report)* [J.O. v. Superior Court (Cal. Supreme Ct. - May 28, 2026)] - In 2022 he was retained with the evaluators' top rating and extensive legal experience. — *The Press Democrat editorial board* [PD Endorsement: Judging justices at the ballot box] ### Arguments against / criticism - J.O.'s 'the world has changed' rationale is 'weak sauce'; the 1977 decision was simply wrong, and the new test is 'too soft' because a subjective good-faith belief suffices. — *Shaun Martin (California Appellate Report)* [J.O. v. Superior Court (Cal. Supreme Ct. - May 28, 2026)] - Dissenting in Morris, Justice Yegan argued '175 years of felony-murder precedent should not be set aside by an ambiguous statute' and called the majority's reading 'imaginative'; Chief Justice Guerrero found the text in 'relative equipoise.' — *Justice Yegan, Chief Justice Guerrero* [People v. Morris (S284751)] - In J.O., San Joaquin County Counsel argued revisiting Solberg risks destabilizing disqualification law and interferes with legislative prerogatives. — *San Joaquin County Counsel* [J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF; CA Supreme Court narrows ability to force blanket judge recusals] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Eight documents, July 2022 to May 2026 plus a 2020 interview. Six contain Groban's own opinion writing: five majority opinions (S2 J.O. v. Superior Court, 2026; S3 People v. Morris, 2026; S4 People v. Salazar, 2023; S6 People v. Cooper, 2023; S7 People v. Ng, 2022) and a short concurrence (S5 People v. Gray, 2023). S1 is the court's citings-archive page for J.O., not opinion text. S8 is an edited transcript of a 2020 California Lawyers Association panel (dated 2020 from its introduction; the stored page is otherwise undated), his only words in the set that are not written for the court. S7, a capital appeal of about 330,000 characters, was read truncated (about the first 263,000), so its later sections were not analyzed. Missing: any dissent he wrote, civil or business opinions beyond the procedural J.O., opinions from 2019 to 2021, and any statement after 2020 outside an opinion. Four of the five majorities were unanimous; Morris drew a concurrence and a dissent. On the evidence of these opinions, Justice Groban's method is text-first statutory interpretation with heavy use of structure. He reads words by their 'plain and commonsense meaning,' leans on the surplusage canon and on the Legislature's different word choices in neighboring subdivisions, and treats legislative history as confirmation rather than the starting point (S3, S6). He defers to the Legislature on policy: in Morris he answers a dissent that defended the traditional felony-murder rule by noting that the Legislature 'made clear that it wished to alter' it (S3), and in J.O. he rejects a broader remedy as 'improper judicial legislating' while noting the Legislature remains free to amend the statute (S2). In criminal cases where a new ameliorative statute applied to a case still on appeal, he enforced the new elements or presumptions strictly and held the government to demanding harmless-error and remand standards (S4, S6); the defendants won on those questions in Morris, Salazar and Cooper. In the one capital appeal, he affirmed the convictions and death sentence in full, often deciding on alternative grounds or finding any error harmless (S7). On precedent, he states respect for stare decisis but wrote the opinion overruling part of a 1977 decision (Solberg), resting the change on changed court conditions, documented with caseload and statutory data, and on separation-of-powers principles protecting judicial independence (S2). His concurrence in Gray shows attention to witness and victim interests within an existing balancing test (S5). Taken together this is best described as a text-and-structure method, deferential to the Legislature on policy and willing to revisit precedent when it gives detailed reasons. In the 2020 interview he describes the job in the same terms: the court decides 'highly academic, highly research—intensive questions of pure law,' is 'not a court of error correction,' and should 'simply focus on the merits' (S8). The sample is too small, and too heavily criminal, to support a political label. Articulation: **strong**. Prepared writing: the opinions are clear, tightly organized and specific. Each states the question and holding early, then works through the parties' arguments under descriptive headings (for example, S3's 'The Plain Language of the Statute, when Viewed in Context, Requires a Nonkiller To Aid the Actual Killer in the Lethal Act'). He shows command of the record (in Cooper he rereads the gang expert's testimony to show the 'most senior' member was the predicate offender's son, S6) and backs a doctrinal change with data, such as felony filings rising from 54,653 in 1977 to 179,821 in fiscal 2023-24 (S2). He answers separate opinions directly (S3). The Gray concurrence and much of Ng apply settled doctrine and show competence more than distinctive reasoning. Spoken: the 2020 interview (an edited transcript of a friendly bar panel, not adversarial questioning) is fluent, concrete and responsive; he answers each question directly, gives specific practitioner guidance (cert-worthiness means a split or an issue of 'statewide import'; 'answer the question that has been put to you'), and uses examples such as a family-law specialist appointee (S8). It contains no questions on contested legal issues, so it does not test articulation under pressure. Consistency: **strong**. From 2020 to 2026 the method and the stated philosophy match. The interview's view that the court decides 'questions of pure law' and is 'not fact finders' (S8) fits the opinions' practice of reserving facts for remand ('take no view,' 'express no view') and deciding on narrow grounds (S2, S4, S5, S7). His stated willingness to write separately (S8) is consistent with the Gray concurrence (S5), though the sample contains no dissent. Outcomes vary with statute and record, not with party: he affirmed a death judgment in full (S7) and ruled for defendants on interpretation or remand questions (S3, S4, S6). The one apparent tension, stated respect for stare decisis against the overruling of Solberg, is addressed directly in the opinion (S2). No reversals of his own stated positions appear. - Stare decisis and overruling precedent: Precedent deserves respect, but it can be revisited when conditions have changed. Solberg (1977) was overruled to the extent it barred as-applied separation-of-powers challenges to blanket judge disqualifications. - "We do not lightly depart from our own precedent." [J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF] (2026-05-28) - "In the almost 50 years since Solberg was decided, the judiciary has changed dramatically" [J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF] (2026-05-28) - Separation of powers and judicial independence: Bad-faith blanket peremptory challenges to a judge can unconstitutionally impair the judiciary's core function of administering justice, and courts may inquire into them. - "We now agree with Justice Tobriner’s ultimate conclusion that we are not powerless to act in the face of such an assault on the judiciary." [J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF] (2026-05-28) - "This is far too consequential a price to be paid for section 170.6’s efficient procedure." [J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF] (2026-05-28) - Limits on the judicial remedy: The court should not adopt a broader remedy than the constitutional problem requires; further policy changes belong to the Legislature. - "too far-reaching and would amount to improper judicial legislating" [J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF] (2026-05-28) - "We do not here question the facial constitutionality of section" [J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF] (2026-05-28) - Statutory interpretation: text and structure first: Statutory words are given their natural meaning in context. When the text is clear, legislative history is unnecessary, though it may be checked for confirmation. - "to mean just what it says" [People v. Morris (S284751)] (2026-05-04) - "As a result, we need not address the Attorney General’s arguments pertaining to legislative history." [People v. Morris (S284751)] (2026-05-04) - "Moreover, the Attorney General’s interpretation would render superfluous much of the new amendment" [People v. Cooper (S273134)] (2023-05-25) - Applying new ameliorative criminal statutes: When the Legislature changes sentencing or offense elements and the change applies to a case still on appeal, reviewing courts must not presume what the trial court or jury would have done under the new law. - "it is almost always speculative for a reviewing court to say what the sentencing court would have done if it had known the scope of its discretionary powers at the time of sentencing." [People v. Salazar (S275788)] (2023-11-20) - "Based upon the record, a jury could have reasonably concluded that the predicate offenses at issue were committed for personal gain alone." [People v. Cooper (S273134)] (2023-05-25) - Felony-murder liability after SB 1437: A nonkiller who intended to kill is liable for felony murder under section 189(e)(2) only if he aided the actual killer in the lethal act itself, not merely in the underlying felony. - "The most natural reading therefore is that aiding “the actual killer” with the commission of murder implies aiding with the lethal act rather than aiding the person (who ends up committing the lethal act) with some felonious act." [People v. Morris (S284751)] (2026-05-04) - "the Legislature made clear that it wished to alter the prior felony-murder rule." [People v. Morris (S284751)] (2026-05-04) - Witness and victim interests in probation revocation hearings: Potential emotional or mental harm to a witness, such as an alleged domestic-violence victim, may count toward the government's good cause for not producing the witness. - "the potential for emotional or mental harm to the witness can be a relevant factor bearing on the state’s demonstration of good cause." [People v. Gray (S269237) with Groban concurrence] (2023-08-14) - "Domestic violence victims, by testifying, may be facilitating their partner or family member’s incarceration." [People v. Gray (S269237) with Groban concurrence] (2023-08-14) - Capital appeals: In People v. Ng he affirmed 11 murder convictions and a death sentence, rejecting the defendant's claims or finding any error harmless. - "We affirm the judgment in its entirety." [People v. Ng (S080276)] (2022-07-28) - "Even if the admission of Laberge’s testimony had been error, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." [People v. Ng (S080276)] (2022-07-28) - Role of the Supreme Court: The court resolves questions of pure law of statewide importance or splits among lower courts; it does not correct individual errors or find facts. - "we are not a court of error correction." [A Conversation With California Supreme Court Justice Joshua P. Groban] (2020) - "We are not fact finders and so, that is a very different posture." [A Conversation With California Supreme Court Justice Joshua P. Groban] (2020) - Diversity of the bench: Judges should reflect the communities they serve, by demographics and by practice background, for the system's legitimacy and quality. - "It’s a simple proposition; our courts should look like the communities they serve." [A Conversation With California Supreme Court Justice Joshua P. Groban] (2020) - "people who have done plaintiffs’ work instead of defense work or criminal defense work instead of prosecution." [A Conversation With California Supreme Court Justice Joshua P. Groban] (2020) Limitations: Six opinions, a non-opinion page and one interview cannot represent more than seven years of work. The sample was picked for availability, not at random, is weighted toward criminal law, includes no dissent by Groban, and shows little civil, business or administrative-law work. Majority opinions reflect negotiation with colleagues, so their wording may not be his alone. The Ng text was truncated. The interview is from 2020, early in his tenure, is an edited transcript, and was a friendly panel that asked about career and practice rather than contested legal questions. This analysis describes method and reasoning; it does not predict future rulings. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-07** — Published: November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-09-29** — Published: California voter guide 2026: Supreme Court (CalMatters) - **2026-09-10** — Published: California Supreme Court Retention — November 2026 Election (GrowSF) - **2026-07-21** — Published: Supreme Court justices on the ballot (Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern)) - **2026-07-21** — At the Lectern noted Groban and Evans will be on the November 2026 retention ballot. (Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern)) - **2026-06-04** — Published: California Supreme Court Permits Judicial Scrutiny Of Blanket Peremptory Challenges To Judges (Mondaq) - **2026-05-29** — Published: CA Supreme Court narrows ability to force blanket judge recusals (Northern California Record (Legal Newsline)) - **2026-05-28** — Published: J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) (California Courts) - **2026-05-28** — Published: J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF (California Courts) - **2026-05-28** — Supreme Court filed its opinion by Justice Groban partly overruling Solberg. (California Courts) - **2026-05-28** — Published: J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - archived opinion (California Courts) - **2026-05-28** — Published: J.O. v. Superior Court (Cal. Supreme Ct. - May 28, 2026) (California Appellate Report (Shaun Martin)) - **2026-05-28** — California Supreme Court filed J.O. v. Superior Court, opinion by Justice Groban. (California Appellate Report (Shaun Martin)) - **2026-05-28** — California Supreme Court decided J.O. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County. (Mondaq) - **2026-05-04** — Published: People v. Morris (S284751) (California Courts) - **2026-05-04** — Supreme Court filed its opinion by Justice Groban reversing the Court of Appeal. (California Courts) - **2026-05** — Groban authored the unanimous opinion in J.O. v. Superior Court (as reported). (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-01-16** — Published: SC decision not to depublish Brown Act case prompts Groban to urge clarifying legislation (California Courts Newsroom) - **2025-09-16** — Published: The 2024-2025 term in numbers - the 45 opinions (Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern)) - **2025-09-16** — Horvitz & Levy published its tally of the 2024-2025 term's opinions. (Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern)) - **2025-08-30** — Review granted and held in Hoglund v. Superior Court (S291333). (California Courts) - **2024-12-18** — Review granted in four related petitions held for this case. (California Courts) - **2024-09-16** — Judge Kristine Eagle denied petitioner's opposition, citing Solberg. (California Courts) - **2024-09** — Superior Court Judge Kristine Eagle denied J.O.'s opposition to the county counsel's motions. (Northern California Record (Legal Newsline)) - **2024-08-14** — Petitioner filed an opposition to County Counsel's 'blanket 170.6' motions. (California Courts) - **2024-08-09** — San Joaquin County Counsel filed a section 170.6 motion to remove Judge Guy Castillo from petitioner's case. (California Courts) - **2024-08** — San Joaquin County Counsel moved to disqualify Judge Erin Guy Castillo from J.O.'s conservatorship case. (Northern California Record (Legal Newsline)) - **2024-07-17** — Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeal's decision in People v. Morris (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1016. (California Courts) - **2024-02-06** — Published: Groban statement dissenting from denial of habeas petition (Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern)) - **2024-02** — Justice Groban filed a statement dissenting from the denial of a habeas corpus petition, joined by Justices Liu and Evans (the week before the February 6, 2024 post). (Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern)) - **2024-02** — Groban filed a statement dissenting from denial of a habeas corpus petition (as reported). (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2023-11-20** — Published: People v. Salazar (S275788) (California Courts) - **2023-11-20** — Supreme Court filed its opinion by Justice Groban reversing and ordering resentencing. (California Courts) - **2023-08-14** — Published: People v. Gray (S269237) with Groban concurrence (Stanford SCOCAL) - **2023-08-14** — Supreme Court filed People v. Gray, opinion by Chief Justice Guerrero with a concurrence by Justice Groban. (Stanford SCOCAL) - **2023-08-14** — Published: People v. Gray (2023) (Justia) - **2023-05-25** — Published: People v. Cooper (S273134) (California Courts) - **2023-05-25** — Supreme Court filed its opinion by Justice Groban reversing the gang and firearm enhancements. (California Courts) - **2022-10-22** — Published: PD Endorsement: Judging justices at the ballot box (The Press Democrat) - **2022-10-22** — Press Democrat editorial board endorsed retention of Groban and other justices. (The Press Democrat) - **2022-07-28** — Published: People v. Ng (S080276) (Supreme Court of California) - **2022-07-28** — California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in an opinion by Justice Groban. (Supreme Court of California) - **2022-02-07** — Published: Reviewing the Tenure of Justice Joshua Groban (Part 2 of 6) (California Supreme Court Review) - **2022-01-14** — Court of Appeal affirmed in an unpublished opinion (B304490). (California Courts) - **2022-01-01** — Senate Bill 567's amendments to section 1170 took effect. (California Courts) - **2022-01-01** — Assembly Bill 333 took effect. (California Courts) - **2020-11** — Salazar sentenced to seven years four months. (California Courts) - **2020** — Groban spoke at the CLA antitrust section's Golden State Institute (the conversation transcribed here). (California Lawyers Association) - **2019-01** — Groban sworn in as an associate justice. (California Lawyers Association) - **2019-01** — Groban began serving on the California Supreme Court. (Supreme Court of California) - **2018-12-21** — Commission on Judicial Appointments confirmation hearing scheduled on Groban's nomination. (The Recorder (Law.com)) - **2018-12-19** — Published: CA Supreme Court Nominee Joshua Groban "Exceptionally Well Qualified," Evaluators Say (At The Lectern by Horvitz & Levy) - **2018-12-19** — Law.com reported Groban received the 'exceptionally well qualified' rating. (The Recorder (Law.com)) - **2018-08-12** — Offense conduct involving M.Q. began at a motel. (California Courts) - **2018** — Governor Brown appointed Groban to the California Supreme Court. (California Lawyers Association) - **2012-10-24** — Shooting death of Nicos Mathis in Compton. (California Courts) - **2010** — Groban took leave from Munger Tolles to serve as general counsel to Jerry Brown's gubernatorial campaign. (California Lawyers Association) - **1999** — Jury returned a death verdict and the trial court sentenced Ng to death. (Supreme Court of California) - **1991-09-27** — Ng made his first appearance in Calaveras County for arraignment after extradition. (Supreme Court of California) - **1987-01-01** — Home-invasion robbery, rape and fatal shooting underlying Morris's conviction. (California Courts) ## Sources ### November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices - cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin) · voter guide · published 2026-10-07 · stance: support - Part IV of Daniel Faigin's personal ballot analysis blog (cahighways.org, 'Observations Along the Road') covering judicial offices on the November 2026 Los Angeles County ballot. For Justice Groban, Faigin applies a retain-unless-problems rule, relies on a Google AI search and finds no scandals or disciplinary concerns, and concludes 'Retain (Yes).' - Faigin's stated approach for Supreme Court retention: reconfirm unless behavior justifies removal (malfeasance, ignoring conflicts of interest, judgments not in accordance with the law); he searches for issues and retains if none are found. - Citing 'Google AI,' he says there are no major scandals, ethical violations, or disciplinary concerns regarding Groban and that his record since his 2019 appointment by Governor Jerry Brown 'remains clean.' - He recounts that Groban is distantly related to the singer Josh Groban and has said he has 'no musical talent whatsoever.' - He reports Groban, asked in a public interview about the worst part of the job, said: 'Staring at a statute and thinking, ‘Boy, the Legislature really screwed this up.’' - He notes Groban's February 2024 statement dissenting from denial of a habeas petition and his May 2026 unanimous opinion in J.O. v. Superior Court against bad-faith blanket disqualification challenges, concluding 'Neither seems problematic.' - Conclusion: 'Retain (Yes).' - Reference: LAist 2026 voter guide: state Supreme Court (Evans, Groban) ### California voter guide 2026: Supreme Court - CalMatters · voter guide · published 2026-09-29 · stance: neutral - CalMatters' 2026 voter guide page on the California Supreme Court retention election, explaining how retention votes work and giving brief background on the two associate justices on the ballot, Kelli M. Evans and Joshua Groban. - Justices are appointed by the governor, confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, face a first retention vote at the next gubernatorial election, and then every 12 years unless appointed to complete another justice's term. - Justices cannot campaign for the job, and voters do not choose a replacement. - CalMatters says ousting a justice is extremely rare; it happened once, in 1986, when three justices were unseated over their capital punishment records. - Groban was appointed by former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018 to complete the term of a retiring justice; he was one of Brown's senior policy advisers and earlier worked in private practice on antitrust and intellectual property. - Reference: Court biography: Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban - Reference: LA Times 1986: justices unseated ### California Supreme Court Retention — November 2026 Election - GrowSF · voter guide · published 2026-09-10 · stance: support - GrowSF's San Francisco voter guide entry on the November 2026 California Supreme Court retention election, recommending a Yes vote to retain Justices Kelli M. Evans and Joshua Groban under its rule of retaining judges absent serious misconduct or poor judgment. - GrowSF recommends voting Yes to retain Justices Kelli M. Evans and Joshua Groban. - Its rule: retain a judge unless there is serious misconduct on the record or poor judgment that deviates from legal norms. - It notes Groban was appointed by Governor Brown in 2018 and Evans by Governor Newsom in 2022. - GrowSF says neither justice appears in the Commission on Judicial Performance public discipline record and it found no organized campaign against either. - Reference: Commission on Judicial Performance discipline decisions - Reference: GrowSF full November 2026 voter guide ### Supreme Court justices on the ballot - Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern) · third party analysis · published 2026-07-21 · stance: neutral - A short Horvitz & Levy 'At the Lectern' blog post noting that Justices Joshua Groban and Kelli Evans will appear on the November 2026 ballot for yes-or-no retention votes, and explaining why Groban is on the ballot again after his 2022 election: he was elected to an unexpired term ending in January 2027 and now seeks a 12-year term of his own. - Justices Groban and Evans will face 'yes' or 'no' retention votes in November. - Groban was elected four years earlier to an unexpired term that ends in January 2027; he now seeks a 12-year term. - This is Justice Evans's first time on the ballot; the blogger says he thinks she should also have been on the 2022 ballot. - The post notes a third, newly appointed justice could also appear on the ballot if the governor filled the court's vacancy (described as over eight months long), the appointee were confirmed and sworn in, and a declaration of candidacy filed within about four weeks, which the post calls unlikely. - Reference: CalMatters 2026 voter guide: Supreme Court - Reference: Elections Code section 13210 (yes/no ballot form) - Reference: Cal. Constitution article VI, section 16 - Reference: Secretary of State info on Supreme Court and Court of Appeal terms and elections ### California Supreme Court Permits Judicial Scrutiny Of Blanket Peremptory Challenges To Judges - Mondaq · third party analysis · published 2026-06-04 · stance: neutral - A WilmerHale client alert (republished on Mondaq/Legal 500) analyzing the California Supreme Court's May 28, 2026 decision in J.O. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County, which lets courts look behind coordinated 'blanket' peremptory disqualification motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. It explains prior law, the new burden-shifting framework, and practical effects for repeat litigants. It does not name the opinion's author. - Under section 170.6, a properly invoked peremptory challenge to a judge is automatic, with no inquiry into the asserted prejudice; Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) held even blanket uses did not violate separation of powers. - In J.O., the San Joaquin County Counsel's Office filed over 300 challenges in under four months against a judge who had admonished a member of that office, per the alert. - The court held section 170.6 remains facially constitutional but its blanket abuse can materially impair the judiciary's core function and violate separation of powers; it overruled Solberg to the extent it barred as-applied challenges. - Framework: an opponent's initial showing of a blanket policy of bad-faith challenges permits inquiry; the burden shifts to the movant to give a good-faith, case-specific basis; the court then decides whether the pattern is improper. - The authors say the court emphasized that good-faith disqualification motions in individual cases are not restricted. - Practical effects named: heightened scrutiny of institutional litigants (government entities, large corporate defendants, frequent plaintiffs), new litigation risk and delay, and less predictability in using 170.6 to manage assignments. - Reference: Original WilmerHale client alert ### CA Supreme Court narrows ability to force blanket judge recusals - Northern California Record (Legal Newsline) · news · published 2026-05-29 · stance: neutral - A Northern California Record (Legal Newsline) news report by Jonathan Bilyk on the California Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in J.O. v. Superior Court, an opinion written by Justice Joshua Groban and filed May 28, which lets courts scrutinize 'blanket' judicial disqualification (recusal) challenges for good faith. The article quotes the opinion at length on why the 1977 precedent Solberg v. Superior Court is 'no longer tenable' and describes the new bad-faith procedure. - The underlying dispute: in August 2024 San Joaquin County Counsel moved to remove Judge Erin Guy Castillo from J.O.'s conservatorship case; J.O. alleged these were improper blanket filings after the judge admonished a deputy county lawyer, and that county counsel had filed 325 reassignment motions. - J.O. asked the Third District Court of Appeal to revisit Solberg v. Superior Court (1977); that court refused, and the case went to the Supreme Court. - The article reports that Groban traced nearly a century of disqualification law, acknowledged 'concerns about decisional consistency,' and explained why Solberg 'is no longer tenable' given caseload growth, budget cutbacks, judge shortages and judicial specialization. - Groban wrote that the court agrees with the Solberg minority opinion by Justice Mathew Tobriner that 'our constitutional structure requires us to act.' - The court held that the separation-of-powers problem arises from any litigant's bad-faith blanket challenges, not only those by executive agencies, siding with the California Judges Association and the California District Attorneys Association on that point. - New procedure: the opponent of a disqualification motion must make a prima facie showing of bad faith; a different judge then holds a hearing at which the challenger must explain the challenge. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeal. - Justice Tracie Brown of the First District Court of Appeal sat by designation; J.O. was represented by public defenders. - Reference: J.O. v. Superior Court opinion (S287285) ### J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2026-05-28 · stance: not_applicable - ### J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - opinion PDF - California Courts · court opinion · published 2026-05-28 · stance: not_applicable - Full text of the California Supreme Court's opinion in J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285), authored by Justice Groban for a unanimous court (Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Evans, and Presiding Justice Brown sitting by assignment). The opinion overrules Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) to the extent Solberg held that 'blanket' abuses of Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 peremptory judge challenges are immune from as-applied separation-of-powers challenges, and sets out a burden-shifting procedure for courts to inquire into alleged bad-faith blanket challenges. - Petitioner J.O., a conservatee, alleged that San Joaquin County Counsel filed about 325 section 170.6 challenges against Judge Erin E. Guy Castillo in less than four months after she admonished a deputy county counsel, leading to her reassignment from the conservatorship department. - The opinion opens by quoting Madison's Federalist No. 51 and frames the case as one about each branch's means to resist encroachment by the others. - It reviews Austin v. Lambert (1938), Johnson v. Superior Court (1958) and Solberg (1977), and the Court of Appeal's criticism of Solberg in People v. Superior Court (Tejeda) (2016). - The opinion acknowledges stare decisis ('We do not lightly depart from our own precedent') but concludes Solberg itself contemplated reassessment as conditions changed. - It relies on changes since 1977: felony filings rising from 54,653 to 179,821 (FY 2023-24), budget cuts, judge shortages, specialty and collaborative courts, and new laws such as the CARE Act, Proposition 36 (2024), the Racial Justice Act, SB 1437 and AB 333. - It holds the separation-of-powers conflict lies between the Legislature (through the statute's terms) and the judiciary, so blanket abuses by any party, not only executive-branch offices, may be challenged. - Procedure: an objecting party must make a prima facie showing of a bad-faith blanket policy; a different judge then holds a hearing at which the proponent must give a clear and reasonably specific good-faith explanation; the framework is modeled on the Batson/Gutierrez burden-shifting test. - The court rejected the California Judges Association's proposal to bar government attorneys from filing section 170.6 motions as 'too far-reaching' and 'improper judicial legislating,' and noted the Legislature remains free to amend section 170.6. - The court took 'no view on the truth of petitioner's allegations' and remanded to the Court of Appeal. - Reference: Federalist No. 51 (cited in the opinion's opening) - Reference: CARE Act overview cited in the opinion ### J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285) - archived opinion - California Courts · court opinion · published 2026-05-28 · stance: not_applicable - A California Courts 'Citings Archive' page for J.O. v. Superior Court (S287285, May 28, 2026). It does not contain the opinion text; it lists the web pages the opinion cites, which the court archives as PDFs. - Lists nine web sources cited in the J.O. opinion, including Federalist No. 51 (Yale Avalon Project), a 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment report to the Legislature, a Desert Sun article on Riverside County criminal cases dismissed amid a judge shortage, an article on California court budget cuts, and court materials on collaborative courts and CARE proceedings. - Gives the case number S287285 and date May 28, 2026, with a link to case details. - Reference: Case details: S287285 docket - Reference: Archived citation: 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment report to the Legislature - Reference: Archived citation: Desert Sun on Riverside County cases dismissed amid judge shortage - Reference: Archived citation: Federalist No. 51 ### J.O. v. Superior Court (Cal. Supreme Ct. - May 28, 2026) - California Appellate Report (Shaun Martin) · third party analysis · published 2026-05-28 · stance: mixed - A California Appellate Report blog post by Shaun Martin reacting to J.O. v. Superior Court, the unanimous May 28, 2026 California Supreme Court opinion by Justice Groban that partly overrules a 1977 precedent and lets courts police 'bad faith' blanket Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 peremptory challenges to judges. Martin applauds the result but criticizes the opinion's stare decisis framing and says its remedial test is too lenient. - Martin, a longtime critic of blanket 170.6 challenges, says repeat players such as district attorney's offices use them to effectively transfer judges out of departments. - The opinion overrules the 1977 Supreme Court decision in part, holds that blanket peremptory challenges can violate separation of powers, and creates a Batson-like test to isolate 'bad faith' blanket challenges. - Martin applauds the result and the unanimity: 'Well done.' - He criticizes Groban's framing that the 'world had changed' since 1977 as 'somewhat weak sauce,' arguing the 1977 court was simply wrong then and the opinion should have said so. - He calls the remedial scheme better than nothing but 'too soft,' because at its third stage the challenger need only show a 'subjective good faith' belief that the judge is biased, even if unreasonable. - He credits the opinion for ruling out some reasons, such as disagreement with a judge's legal rulings, views that a judge is too soft or hard on crime, or a judge's race or gender. - Reference: Martin's 2016 post on the earlier Court of Appeal opinion questioning blanket challenges ### People v. Morris (S284751) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2026-05-04 · stance: not_applicable - Full text of People v. Morris (S284751), a California Supreme Court opinion authored by Justice Groban (joined by Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger and Evans), with a concurring opinion by Chief Justice Guerrero and a dissent by Justice Yegan (Court of Appeal, sitting by assignment). The majority holds that under Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e)(2), as amended by Senate Bill 1437, a nonkiller who acted with intent to kill is liable for felony murder only if he aided or abetted the actual killer in the lethal act itself, not merely in the underlying felony; it reverses the Court of Appeal's denial of resentencing relief and remands. - Morris sought resentencing under section 1172.6 to vacate a murder conviction arising from a 1987 home-invasion robbery and rape in which the victim, Stockwell, was shot; the record did not establish whether Morris or his codefendant was the actual killer. - The majority reads the phrase 'aided . . . or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree' by its plain, commonsense meaning to require aid in the killing, writing that the court interprets the language 'to mean just what it says.' - It relies on statutory structure: the Legislature used 'underlying felony' in subdivision (e)(3) but not in (e)(2), signaling different required acts. - Having found the text clear, the majority says it need not address the Attorney General's legislative-history arguments, but adds that the history would not change the result. - It rejects the Attorney General's argument that its reading creates an illogical structure in subdivision (e), saying the Legislature may have created 'different paths to liability' tied to culpability. - The majority disapproves People v. Lopez (2023), People v. Lopez (2024) and People v. Taito (2025), and leaves the Attorney General's remaining arguments, including the financial-gain special circumstance, for the Court of Appeal on remand. - Chief Justice Guerrero concurs, finding the statute not plain but in 'relative equipoise,' and joins the result by applying the rule of lenity. - Justice Yegan dissents, arguing '175 years of felony-murder precedent should not be set aside by an ambiguous statute,' and that Morris assisted even under the majority's reading by helping handcuff the victim. ### SC decision not to depublish Brown Act case prompts Groban to urge clarifying legislation - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2026-01-16 · stance: neutral - ### The 2024-2025 term in numbers - the 45 opinions - Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern) · third party analysis · published 2025-09-16 · stance: neutral - A Horvitz & Levy 'At the Lectern' blog post by David S. Ettinger tallying the California Supreme Court's 45 opinions in the 2024-2025 term (September 1, 2024 to August 31, 2025), with per-justice statistics. For Justice Groban it reports five opinions for the court, one concurrence, and the dissents his opinions drew. - The court issued 45 opinions in the term (22 civil, 23 criminal including nine death penalty), down from 58 and 55 in the two prior terms. - All seven justices concurred in 34 of the 45 opinions (76 percent); counting two cases with separate concurrences but no dissents, the no-dissent rate was 80 percent. - Justice Groban wrote five opinions for the court: two civil and three criminal, including two death penalty appeals. - One of Groban's death penalty opinions drew a limited dissent, and three justices dissented from one of his civil decisions; three of his five opinions were unanimous. - Groban filed one concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kelli Evans, and signed a Justice Goodwin Liu concurrence. - For comparison, the post reports Justice Liu wrote nine opinions for the court, Chief Justice Guerrero and Justice Evans seven each, Justices Kruger and Corrigan six each, and Justice Jenkins five. - Reference: Prior post: 2024-2025 term conference statistics - Reference: 2023-2024 term in numbers, part 2 ### Groban statement dissenting from denial of habeas petition - Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern) · third party analysis · published 2024-02-06 · stance: neutral - A Horvitz & Levy 'At the Lectern' blog post reporting that, the previous week, Justice Joshua Groban filed a statement dissenting from the California Supreme Court's denial of a habeas corpus petition, joined by Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans. The post's main point is that such separate statements are hard for the public to find; it does not describe the statement's content. - Groban filed a statement dissenting from the denial of a habeas corpus petition; Justices Liu and Evans signed on. - The habeas petition was filed in the Supreme Court in the first instance, so there was no Court of Appeal opinion to which the statement could be attached. - Separate statements on denials are not published in the court's official reports; the practice was revived by Justice Liu in 2015, according to the post. - The statement appears on the court's online docket (in a hard-to-read form), will appear in the minutes, and was published online by Westlaw with a note that it won't be in the California Reporter. - The blog argues separate statements should be published in the Supreme Court's official reports. - Reference: Supreme Court online docket for the habeas case (S276024) - Reference: Prior post: three dissents from and a separate statement about the denial of a pro per's habeas petition ### People v. Salazar (S275788) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2023-11-20 · stance: not_applicable - Full text of People v. Salazar (S275788), a unanimous California Supreme Court opinion authored by Justice Groban (joined by Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Jenkins and Evans). The court holds that the record did not 'clearly indicate' the trial court would have imposed the same middle-term sentence had it known of Senate Bill 567's new lower-term presumption for offenders whose qualifying trauma contributed to the offense, reverses the Court of Appeal, and orders a remand for resentencing. - Salazar was convicted in Ventura County of false imprisonment and inflicting corporal injury on a former dating partner (acquitted of kidnapping and attempted robbery) and sentenced in November 2020 to seven years four months, using the middle term doubled for a prior strike. - Senate Bill 567, effective January 1, 2022 while his appeal was pending, created a presumption for the lower term when psychological, physical or childhood trauma contributed to the offense; the parties agreed it applied, and the Attorney General conceded the record suggested a qualifying trauma. - A divided Court of Appeal declined to remand, finding the record clearly showed the trial court would not have chosen the low term. - Applying People v. Gutierrez (2014), the Supreme Court found the denial of a Romero motion, consecutive sentences, the protective order and the court's comments did not clearly show what the trial court would do under the new presumption, because each involved a different legal inquiry. - The opinion states that after a substantive change in sentencing law it is 'almost always speculative' for a reviewing court to predict what the sentencing court would have done, and that remand is required unless the record clearly shows it would be idle. - The court expressly took no view on what sentence should be imposed on remand, noting either keeping the sentence or applying the lower term would be within the trial court's discretion. ### People v. Gray (S269237) with Groban concurrence - Stanford SCOCAL · court opinion · published 2023-08-14 · stance: not_applicable - Text of People v. Gray (S269237), as reposted by Stanford's California Supreme Court Resources (SCOCAL) site. Chief Justice Guerrero wrote the unanimous opinion of the Court, joined by Justice Groban and the other justices; Justice Groban also wrote a short concurring opinion. The court held that hearsay qualifying as a spontaneous statement under Evidence Code section 1240 is not automatically admissible at a probation revocation hearing; the trial court must balance the probationer's confrontation interest against the government's good cause for not producing the witness. Groban's concurrence emphasizes that potential emotional or mental harm to a witness, including alleged domestic-violence victims, can count toward good cause. - The Court of Appeal had held that statements within a 'firmly rooted' hearsay exception automatically satisfied minimum due process at a probation revocation hearing; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. - The majority applies the balancing test from People v. Arreola (1994) and disapproves People v. Stanphill to the extent inconsistent; it states witness unavailability is neither a threshold requirement nor dispositive. - Justice Groban's concurrence writes 'separately to emphasize' that Arreola recognizes a risk of 'mental or emotional harm' to the declarant as part of good cause. - The concurrence cites law-review research and People v. Brown (2004) on recantation and non-cooperation in domestic violence cases and on the emotional bonds between victims and abusers. - Groban states he expresses no view on the factual record or whether good cause can be shown on remand. ### People v. Gray (2023) - Justia · court opinion · published 2023-08-14 · stance: not_applicable - ### People v. Cooper (S273134) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2023-05-25 · stance: not_applicable - Full text of People v. Cooper (S273134), a unanimous California Supreme Court opinion authored by Justice Groban (joined by Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Jenkins and Evans). Applying Assembly Bill 333's new gang-law elements retroactively, the court holds that the jury's lack of instruction that predicate offenses must have 'commonly benefited' the gang in a 'more than reputational' way was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and reverses Cooper's gang enhancement and the dependent firearm enhancement, with remand for any retrial. - Cooper, a Lueders Park gang member, was convicted on retrial in Los Angeles County of the 2012 first degree murder of rival gang member Nicos Mathis in Compton, with gang and firearm enhancements, and sentenced to 75 years to life; the murder conviction itself was not at issue. - AB 333 (effective January 1, 2022) requires proof that predicate offenses 'commonly benefited a criminal street gang' and that the benefit is 'more than reputational'; the parties agreed it applied retroactively and that Chapman v. California governs prejudice. - The opinion holds that a gang's 'primary activities' and whether a specific predicate offense commonly benefited the gang are distinct questions, so evidence that two members each committed a robbery or narcotics sale was not enough. - It reasons the Attorney General's reading would make AB 333's new requirement 'mere surplusage' and conflicts with legislative history aimed at 'making the standards for applying a gang enhancement more rigorous.' - It closely examines the gang expert's testimony, concluding that the 'most senior' member described was Mahan's son, not predicate offender Mahan, and rejecting 'out of hand' inferring seniority from a family member. - The opinion notes the Court of Appeal's decision was the only one cited affirming a gang enhancement after AB 333 for a trial held before the law, and notes circumstantial evidence and nonfinancial benefits may prove a common benefit in other cases. ### PD Endorsement: Judging justices at the ballot box - The Press Democrat · endorsement · published 2022-10-22 · stance: support - A Press Democrat editorial board endorsement from October 2022 recommending a yes vote to retain all four California Supreme Court justices on that year's ballot, including Joshua Groban, and nine First District Court of Appeal justices. It addresses Groban only briefly. - The board says that, as non-lawyers, it assessed the 13 justices on the ballot and found no reason to oppose any retention. - It says Groban, Goodwin Liu (both Brown appointees) and Martin Jenkins have extensive legal and judicial experience and, like Patricia Guerrero, received the top rating from the judicial evaluations commission. - The board says it would prefer shifting retention decisions to the Commission on Judicial Appointments, which would require a constitutional amendment. - It notes the court's rulings are often unanimous and that it doesn't agree with every ruling. ### People v. Ng (S080276) - Supreme Court of California · court opinion · published 2022-07-28 · stance: not_applicable - Full text of People v. Ng (S080276), the automatic appeal in the death-penalty case of Charles Chitat Ng, with an opinion of the Court authored by Justice Groban and joined by Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Jenkins, Guerrero and Presiding Justice Pollak (sitting by assignment). The court rejected every claim and affirmed Ng's 11 first degree murder convictions, the multiple-murder special circumstance, and the death sentence 'in its entirety.' - The victims disappeared from Northern California between July 1984 and April 1985; the case broke after Ng and accomplice Leonard Lake attempted to shoplift a vise in June 1985 and Lake later killed himself in custody. - Ng was in custody in Canada for years before extradition; the opinion notes his representation involved several attorneys, 37 Marsden motions, and a brief period of self-representation. - The opinion addresses claims on the right to counsel and self-representation (Faretta, standby counsel, refusal to appoint the San Francisco Public Defender), venue change, competency, restraints, extradition-hearing testimony, evidentiary and instructional issues, penalty-phase issues, and judicial bias. - On several claims the opinion decides on alternative grounds, e.g., 'We need not decide whether defendant waived his claim, because there was no Sixth Amendment violation regardless,' and finds asserted prejudice 'too speculative.' - On judicial bias, it holds that a Court of Appeal disqualification of one trial judge did not amount to a finding of bias and that adverse rulings do not establish bias. - It rejects standard challenges to California's death penalty law by citing precedent, and finds no cumulative prejudice from two assumed errors (no section 987.05 hearing; admission of Gouveia's testimony) and two alternative harmless-error analyses. ### Reviewing the Tenure of Justice Joshua Groban (Part 2 of 6) - California Supreme Court Review · third party analysis · published 2022-02-07 · stance: neutral - A short installment (Part 2 of 6) of a California Supreme Court Review blog series on Justice Groban's tenure, giving only opinion counts through the end of 2021. - In civil cases, Groban wrote seven opinions from joining the court through the end of 2021: five majority opinions, one concurrence and one dissent. - On the criminal side he had written ten opinions, all majority opinions, with no concurrences or dissents. ### CA Supreme Court Nominee Joshua Groban "Exceptionally Well Qualified," Evaluators Say - At The Lectern by Horvitz & Levy · bar evaluation · published 2018-12-19 · stance: neutral - The stored text is not the article catalogued under this listing ('SF Chronicle urges the election of Supreme Court justices'); the URL resolved to the home page of Horvitz & Levy's 'At the Lectern' blog, which shows only a list of recent post headlines and a sidebar of links. It barely concerns Justice Groban: his name appears only in a headline, 'Chronicle endorses Justices Groban and Evans', and in the sidebar list of current justices. - The page is a blog index of recent post titles, not an article about Groban. - One listed headline reads 'Chronicle endorses Justices Groban and Evans'; the endorsement itself is not reproduced. - The sidebar lists Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban among the current justices and shows one seat as 'Vacancy'. - Reference: At the Lectern post: Chronicle endorses Justices Groban and Evans - Reference: Court biography: Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban ### CA Supreme Court Nominee Joshua Groban "Exceptionally Well Qualified," Evaluators Say - The Recorder (Law.com) · bar evaluation · published 2018-12-19 · stance: neutral - A Law.com (The Recorder) article by Cheryl Miller, of which only the opening is available (the rest is paywalled), reporting that Joshua Groban, Governor Jerry Brown's final nominee to the California Supreme Court, received the state judicial evaluators' top rating of 'exceptionally well qualified,' ahead of a Dec. 21 confirmation hearing. - Groban was Gov. Brown's final nominee to the California Supreme Court. - State judicial evaluators gave him their top rating, 'exceptionally well qualified.' - The judicial appointments commission was set to hold confirmation hearings on the nomination Dec. 21. - Reference: Law.com: Brown picks Joshua Groban for Supreme Court (Nov. 14, 2018) ### A Conversation With California Supreme Court Justice Joshua P. Groban - California Lawyers Association · interview · published undated · stance: neutral - An edited question-and-answer transcript, published by the California Lawyers Association's antitrust section journal (Competition), of a conversation with Justice Joshua Groban at the section's 2020 Golden State Institute, conducted by Cheryl Lee Johnson and Courtney A. Palko. Groban discusses his career, his work overseeing judicial appointments for Governor Jerry Brown, the traits he believes make a good judge, how the Supreme Court decides which cases to take, advice on briefs and oral argument, writing separately, and why he values a judiciary that reflects the communities it serves. - Groban describes his path (clerkship, Paul Weiss, Munger Tolles & Olson, general counsel to Brown's 2010 campaign, senior advisor overseeing judicial appointments) as largely 'serendipity' rather than a plan. - He says Brown's administration sought 'excellent lawyers who would make excellent judges' from any practice background, not only prosecutors or commercial litigators. - He lists temperament, intelligence, openness followed by decisiveness, empathy and emotional IQ as key judicial traits, and says he now ranks 'pure smarts' about third or fourth. - He tells his clerks 'rule number one is try and get it right' and that he wants staff who will disagree with him. - He says collegiality on the Court makes it easier to write separately, e.g., telling an author 'I just read the statute differently.' - He says the Supreme Court is 'not a court of error correction' and grants review mainly for conflicts among lower courts or issues of statewide importance; he values amicus briefs that explain real-world effects. - His main oral-argument advice is to 'answer the question that has been put to you.' - He names Robinson, a certified question from the Ninth Circuit about state habeas procedure, as an opinion he is proud of. - He states 'our courts should look like the communities they serve,' including diversity of practice background. ### California Supreme Court elections, 2026 - Ballotpedia · voter guide · published undated · stance: neutral - ### Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban - Supreme Court of California · official text · published undated · stance: not_applicable - The California Supreme Court's official biography of Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban: his service on the court since January 2019, his prior role as Senior Advisor to Governor Jerry Brown (including advising on more than 600 judicial appointments), his private practice in complex civil litigation, and his education and clerkship. - Began serving on the California Supreme Court in January 2019. - Previously Senior Advisor to Governor Jerry Brown, advising on judicial appointments, legal policy and legislative issues. - Advised the governor on the appointment of over 600 judges, roughly one in three judges in the state, per the biography. - Earlier in private practice specializing in complex civil litigation (antitrust, internal investigations, intellectual property). - Served on a local school board, participated in mentor programs, lectured on judicial appointments, and has taught State Appellate Practice at UCLA School of Law. - Grew up in San Diego; B.A. with honors and distinction from Stanford; J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School; clerked for Judge William C. Conner (S.D.N.Y.). ### Joshua Groban - Ballotpedia · voter guide · published undated · stance: neutral - ### SF Chronicle urges the election of Supreme Court justices - At The Lectern by Horvitz & Levy · endorsement · published undated · stance: support - The stored text is not the article catalogued under this listing ('SF Chronicle urges the election of Supreme Court justices'); the URL resolved to the home page of Horvitz & Levy's 'At the Lectern' blog, which shows only a list of recent post headlines and a sidebar of links. It barely concerns Justice Groban: his name appears only in a headline, 'Chronicle endorses Justices Groban and Evans', and in the sidebar list of current justices. - The page is a blog index of recent post titles, not an article about Groban. - One listed headline reads 'Chronicle endorses Justices Groban and Evans'; the endorsement itself is not reproduced. - The sidebar lists Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban among the current justices and shows one seat as 'Vacancy'. - Reference: At the Lectern post: Chronicle endorses Justices Groban and Evans - Reference: Court biography: Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban ## Suggested use Ask me neutral questions about this subject using the material above. Distinguish what the sources say from your own background knowledge, cite the source titles you rely on, and say when information may be out of date given the dates shown.