California Supreme Court Watch

#26-59 Bonta v. Bianco, 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?

Petition for review granted: 4/08/2026

Opinion filed: Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue: 9/24/2026

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Bonta v. Bianco (2026) 20 Cal.5th 1065.)

“The Attorney General has stressed throughout this litigation that the circumstances before us are extraordinary, that he does not lightly exercise the power conferred upon him by article V, section 13 and Government Code section 12560, and that normally his interactions with sheriffs are constructive and collaborative. With the clarification provided by this decision, we anticipate this norm of constructive and collaborative interaction will continue to prevail in the future.

Here and now, however, with the Attorney General’s orders to respondents falling within his constitutional and statutory authority and the requirements for writ relief being satisfied, he is entitled to a writ of mandate ordering compliance with his directions. Respondents’ arguments all boil down to the unsustainable view that the state’s chief law enforcement officer, who is charged with “the duty . . . to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced” (Cal. Const., art. V, § 13) and has the authority to exercise “direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff . . . in all matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices” (ibid.) and to “direct the activities of any sheriff relative to the investigation or detection of crime within the jurisdiction of the sheriff” (Gov. Code, § 12560), nevertheless must remain a mere bystander to an unprecedented sheriff’s investigation of undeniable statewide significance. As we have explained, that is not the case.

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondents Chad Bianco and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department to comply with the Attorney General’s instructions to (1) take no further action on the investigation of the November 2025 Special Election in Riverside County pending the Attorney General’s review of this matter; (2) retain, pending further instruction, all records seized in the course of that investigation, other than those that must be returned to the registrar pursuant to our order in Cervantes;[fn. omitted] and (3) provide the Attorney General with all materials requested in his March 6 letter that are in respondents’ possession and have not already been provided to the Attorney General. Each party shall bear its own costs.[fn. omitted]”

Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Evans, and Burns* concurred.