Skip to main content.

Supreme Court Oral Argument

The audio issues with the court's oral argument webcast on September 8, 2025 have been resolved.  A full copy of the proceedings with the missing audio restored is available here: Oral Argument link

Oral Argument

Supreme Court Oral Argument

9:00am - 5:00pm Wednesday October 8, 2025

This is a special outreach session attended by high school students and their teachers as an opportunity to learn about the judicial process.

The live webcast will begin here at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 8.

View the Oral Argument Calendar | Briefs

The following cases are placed upon the calendar of the Supreme Court for hearing at its Special Session at the courtroom at Colton Hall Museum, 570 Pacific Street, Monterey, California, on October 8, 2025.  The public may attend in person and also have access to argument via live-streaming on the judicial branch website:  https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2025 — 9:00 A.M.

Opening Remarks: Special Session

(1) People v. Shaw (Troy Lee), S286453
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue: Does a hospital have a duty to disclose emergency room fees to patients beyond its statutory duty to make its chargemaster publicly available?

(2) City of San José v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association et al., S285426
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Is the issuance of pension obligation bonds to finance unfunded pension liability subject to the voter-approval requirement of article XVI, section 18, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution?

(3) People v. Demolle (Alex), [Automatic Appeal], S159120
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

1:30 P.M.

(4) People v. Kopp (Christi J.) et al., S257844
(Guerrero, C. J., not participating; Rothschild, P. J. assigned justice pro tempore)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part judgments of conviction of criminal offenses. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Must a court consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing or executing fines, fees, and assessments? (2) If so, which party bears the burden of proof regarding the defendant’s inability to pay?