This case presents the following issue: Should this court’s decision in Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 be overruled or limited insofar as it allowed a public agency to bring “blanket challenges” against particular judges under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6?

On 9/24/25, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on the following question: Assuming arguendo that “blanket challenges” to a particular judge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 implicate separation of powers concerns, do those concerns apply to actions taken only by executive branch offices such as a county counsel or a district attorney’s office, or does the concern apply more broadly to non-executive branch entities such as a public defender’s office or a private law firm? (See, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Tejeda) (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 892, 896; id. at p. 912, fn. 2 (conc. opn. of Aronson, J.); id. at p. 930 (dis. opn. of Thompson, J.).)

Held:

“We do not here question the facial constitutionality of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 170.6’s ‘efficient and discreet procedure’ ([Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, 204]) when used as intended but overrule Solberg to the extent it concluded that blanket abuses of section 170.6 are immune from as-applied challenges on separation of powers grounds. Instead, we hold that if a party timely objects to a section 170.6 motion and makes a prima facie showing that the motion’s proponent is lodging bad faith blanket challenges against a judge, a court may look beyond the section 170.6 affidavit or oral statement and inquire into the legitimacy of the party’s assertions of prejudice.”

This case was decided May 28, 2026. Justice Groban authored the opinion of the Court.