California Supreme Court Watch

#25-44 Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court, S288176. 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: Does the prohibition on electronic recording of certain proceedings in Government Code section 69957, subdivision (a) violate the California Constitution when an official court reporter is unavailable and a litigant cannot afford to pay a private court reporter?

Order to show cause issued: 2/19/2025

Written return filed: 3/21/2025

Traverse filed: 4/07/2025

Cause argued and submitted: 6/03/2026

Opinion filed: 8/10/2026

See the Petition for Writ of Mandate/Prohibition.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion. (Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (2026) 20 Cal.5th 564.)

“Because the respondent superior courts do not in all cases provide civil litigants who cannot afford to hire a private court reporter with some means of obtaining an official verbatim record of proceedings, thereby depriving these litigants of meaningful access to the appellate process, the courts fail to fulfill their duty under the in forma pauperis doctrine to facilitate equal access to justice for these litigants. We therefore issue a writ of mandate directing them to do so.”

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

In the news: Quinn Wilson, California High Court Eases Courtroom Recording Restrictions (2), Bloomberg Law (Aug. 10, 2026).