The California Court of Appeal recently issued what may become one of the most important Mental Health Diversion decisions since the statute was enacted in 2018. In People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, the court held that a trial judge may not deny Mental Health Diversion simply because the charged crime is particularly violent or disturbing if the defendant otherwise satisfies the statutory requirements for diversion.

With all of the decisions from the United States Supreme Court released at the end of the October 2025 Term, there is one case involving Fourth Amendment rights that is worthy of note. In Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (June 29, 2025) the Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell-phone location data but then remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit to determine if the warrant was based on probable cause.

There is a certain asynchronous irony about today's shadow docket per curiam opinion. The United States Supreme Court decided Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges (No. 26-767) without full briefing and without oral argument.

Monday’s, per curiam in District of Columbia v. R.W. 608 U.S. ____ (2026) is yet another example of the use of the shadow docket to decide cases without taking the responsibility of issuing a signed opinion or doing the type of thorough analysis that one would expect from a full opinion after argument.

The United States Supreme Court today issued a per curiam opinion from its shadow docket in Zorn v. Linton. The unsigned opinion was met by the dissent of Justice Sotomayor. The issue was whether or not a police officer was entitled to a summary judgment based on qualified immunity. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, the majority continued its statistical trend to find in favor of police officers In excessive force cases. Both the opinion and the dissent Interpreted lower fede

On March 2, 2026, the Office of the Attorney General of the United States agreed to abandon its appeal from the District Court rulings in favor of Perkins Coie and other firms seeking to strike down the Executive Order punishing them. Sanger, Hanley, Sanger & Avila, along with 503 other firms, signed on to an amicus brief supporting the targeted firms who then prevailed in the district court.

The United States Supreme Court today, in an opinion by Justice Jackson (Villareal v. Texas, No. 24-557), held that defendants in criminal cases who are on the stand can be restricted from discussing their testimony with their own lawyers during overnight recesses.

The United States Supreme Court this morning in the case of Case v. Montana (No. 24-624) reaffirmed the “community caretaker” exception to the requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment for entry into a home. Justice Jackson wrote for the majority.

The Ninth Circuit just issued an Opinion in Baird v. Bonta , No. 24-565 (January 2, 2026) (“ Baird ”) which took an expansive view of the United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (“ Bruen ”). Basically, Baird found California’s Open Carry law unconstitutional on its face as it related to counties with populations of 200,000 or more. (It denied an “as applied” challenge to the application of the law to count