BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//JudicialCouncil//NONSGML v1.0//EN BEGIN:VEVENT UID:event32952@trial.court DTSTAMP:20260819T055451Z DTSTART:20260824T170000Z DTEND:20260824T190000Z SUMMARY:Supreme Court Oral Argument DESCRIPTION:This oral argument session will be held in-person at San Francisco. A live webcast will be available during the oral argument. The live webcast will begin here [1] at 10 a.m. on Monday, August 24. View the Oral Argument Calendar [2] | Briefs [3] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ /The following cases are placed upon the calendar of the Supreme Court for hearing at a Special Session at the courtroom in the Ronald M. George State Office Complex, Earl Warren Building, 350 McAllister Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California, on August 24, 2026.  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/ [4]./ *MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2026 — 10:00 A.M. * (1)  /*Cervantes (Clarissa) et al. v. Bianco (Chad) et al. (Riverside County Citizens et al., Real Parties in Interest), S295866 (Burns, J., assigned justice pro tempore)*/ #26-77  Cervantes (Clarissa) et al. v. Bianco (Chad) et al. (Riverside County Citizens et al., Real Parties in Interest), S295866.  Original proceeding.  The court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.  This case presents the following issue:  Are petitioners entitled to writ relief directing that cast ballots be returned to the county registrar of voters, on the ground that their seizure by law enforcement pursuant to search warrants violated the Elections Code?  The court also directed the parties to address, the effect, if any, of Senate Bill No. 73 (2025–2026 Reg. Sess.) on the issues presented in this matter. (2)  /*Attorney General of the State of California v. Bianco (Chad) et al., S295901 (Burns, J., assigned justice pro tempore)*/ #26-59  Attorney General of the State of California v. Bianco (Chad) et al., S295901.  (E088096; nonpublished order; Riverside County Superior Court; RI031920261.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate.  The court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) What is the scope of the Attorney General’s constitutional and statutory authority to supervise and direct the activities of a county sheriff?  (See Cal. Const., art. V, § 13; Gov. Code, § 12560.)  (2) Is the Attorney General entitled to a writ of mandate directing the Riverside County Sheriff to comply with the Attorney General’s directives, including the Attorney General’s directive to cease the Sheriff’s investigation into the November 2025 special election?  (3) Is the Attorney General entitled to a writ of mandate directing the superior court to quash or stay execution of a search warrant if the warrant was issued in contravention of the Attorney General’s directives or deficient on its face?  The court also directed the parties to address, in addition to the other issues presented, the effect, if any, of Senate Bill No. 73 (2025–2026 Reg. Sess.) on the issues presented in this matter. [1] https://jcc.granicus.com/player/event/5802 [2] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/2026-08/August%2024%202026%20OA%20Calendar%20with%20issue%20statements%20-%20FINAL%20-%20R.pdf [3] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/case-information/briefs-argued-cases/august-24-2026-oral-argument-cases [4] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/ X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:

This oral argument session will be held in-person at San Francisco. A live webcast will be available during the oral argument.

The live webcast will begin here at 10 a.m. on Monday, August 24.

View the Oral Argument Calendar | Briefs

The following cases are placed upon the calendar of the Supreme Court for hearing at a Special Session at the courtroom in the Ronald M. George State Office Complex, Earl Warren Building, 350 McAllister Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California, on August 24, 2026.  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/.

MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2026 — 10:00 A.M. 

(1)  Cervantes (Clarissa) et al. v. Bianco (Chad) et al. (Riverside County Citizens et al., Real Parties in Interest), S295866
(Burns, J., assigned justice pro tempore)
#26-77  Cervantes (Clarissa) et al. v. Bianco (Chad) et al. (Riverside County Citizens et al., Real Parties in Interest), S295866.  Original proceeding.  The court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.  This case presents the following issue:  Are petitioners entitled to writ relief directing that cast ballots be returned to the county registrar of voters, on the ground that their seizure by law enforcement pursuant to search warrants violated the Elections Code?  The court also directed the parties to address, the effect, if any, of Senate Bill No. 73 (2025–2026 Reg. Sess.) on the issues presented in this matter.

(2)  Attorney General of the State of California v. Bianco (Chad) et al., S295901
(Burns, J., assigned justice pro tempore)
#26-59  Attorney General of the State of California v. Bianco (Chad) et al., S295901.  (E088096; nonpublished order; Riverside County Superior Court; RI031920261.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate.  The court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) What is the scope of the Attorney General’s constitutional and statutory authority to supervise and direct the activities of a county sheriff?  (See Cal. Const., art. V, § 13; Gov. Code, § 12560.)  (2) Is the Attorney General entitled to a writ of mandate directing the Riverside County Sheriff to comply with the Attorney General’s directives, including the Attorney General’s directive to cease the Sheriff’s investigation into the November 2025 special election?  (3) Is the Attorney General entitled to a writ of mandate directing the superior court to quash or stay execution of a search warrant if the warrant was issued in contravention of the Attorney General’s directives or deficient on its face?  The court also directed the parties to address, in addition to the other issues presented, the effect, if any, of Senate Bill No. 73 (2025–2026 Reg. Sess.) on the issues presented in this matter.

LOCATION: END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR