Significant California Supreme Court Cases

Why This Matters

California's Supreme Court has consistently been a trailblazer in American jurisprudence, often ruling on civil rights and constitutional questions years or even decades before the U.S. Supreme Court addressed similar issues. When you study these cases, you're learning how state constitutions can provide broader protections than the federal Constitution—a concept called independent state grounds doctrine. These decisions shaped everything from how California funds its schools to who can marry whom, and they frequently influenced national legal trends.

You're being tested on more than case names and dates. Exam questions will ask you to identify which constitutional principles each case applied—equal protection, fundamental rights, free speech, due process—and how courts balanced competing interests like individual liberty versus state power, or private property rights versus public expression. Don't just memorize outcomes; know what legal reasoning got the court there and why California often led the nation.

---

Equal Protection and Civil Rights

The California Constitution's equal protection clause has been interpreted more broadly than its federal counterpart, making it a powerful tool for challenging discriminatory laws. When a court finds a "fundamental right" is at stake, it applies strict scrutiny—the highest level of judicial review.

People v. Hall (1854)

• Ruled that Chinese witnesses could not testify against white defendants—extending an existing ban on Black and Native American testimony to Chinese immigrants
• Reflected institutionalized racism in Gold Rush-era California, using pseudoscientific racial theories to justify the decision
• Demonstrates how courts can entrench discrimination—this case left Chinese Californians without legal recourse against crimes committed by white perpetrators for decades

Perez v. Sharp (1948)

• First state supreme court to strike down an anti-miscegenation law—ruling California's ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional 19 years before Loving v. Virginia
• Established marriage as a fundamental right under California's Constitution, applying strict scrutiny to racial classifications
• Pioneered civil rights jurisprudence—Justice Traynor's opinion became a template for future equal protection challenges nationwide

In re Marriage Cases (2008)

• Legalized same-sex marriage in California by ruling that domestic partnerships were an unconstitutional "separate but equal" status
• Applied strict scrutiny to sexual orientation classifications—making California the first state to treat LGBTQ+ individuals as a "suspect class"
• Temporarily overturned by Proposition 8—but the legal reasoning influenced the eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

---

Education as a Fundamental Right

Unlike the federal Constitution, California's Constitution explicitly addresses education, and the state supreme court has interpreted this to create enforceable rights to equal educational opportunity.

Serrano v. Priest (1971)

• Declared California's property tax-based school funding unconstitutional—because wealthy districts could spend far more per pupil than poor districts
• Established education as a "fundamental interest" under California's Constitution, requiring the state to ensure roughly equal funding across districts
• Triggered Proposition 13 backlash—the 1978 property tax cap was partly a response to Serrano, ultimately shifting school funding to the state level

Bakke v. Regents of University of California (1978)

• Struck down UC Davis Medical School's racial quota system while allowing race to be one factor among many in admissions decisions
• Split decision created lasting ambiguity—Justice Powell's "diversity rationale" became the legal framework for affirmative action for decades
• California-specific impact—Proposition 209 (1996) later banned affirmative action in California public institutions entirely, making Bakke's compromise moot in the state

---

Criminal Justice and Due Process

California's courts have sometimes interpreted defendants' rights more broadly than federal courts, though these decisions have frequently sparked political backlash and constitutional amendments.

People v. Anderson (1972)

• Declared California's death penalty unconstitutional under the state constitution's prohibition on "cruel or unusual" punishment—note the "or" versus the federal "and"
• Commuted sentences of 107 death row inmates—including Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan
• Overturned within months—voters passed Proposition 17 amending the state constitution to permit capital punishment, demonstrating the tension between judicial interpretation and popular will

---

Free Speech and Property Rights

California courts have interpreted the state constitution's free speech protections more expansively than the First Amendment, particularly regarding speech on private property.

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)

• Upheld the right to collect petition signatures in a private shopping center—ruling that California's constitution protects free speech even on private property open to the public
• Affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court—which ruled that states can provide broader speech protections than the federal Constitution requires
• Balanced competing rights—the court found that shopping centers function as modern public forums, so limited speech activities don't constitute an unconstitutional "taking" of property

---

Emerging Legal Frontiers

California's position as a hub for technology and biotechnology has brought novel legal questions before its courts.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)

• U.S. Supreme Court case with major California implications—ruled that genetically engineered organisms are patentable, opening the door for biotech industry growth
• "Anything under the sun made by man" can be patented—this broad interpretation transformed Silicon Valley and California's biotechnology sector
• Raised ongoing ethical questions—about patenting life forms, genetic resources, and the boundaries of intellectual property

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two California Supreme Court cases established marriage as a fundamental right, and how did their equal protection analyses differ?

2. How did Serrano v. Priest change the relationship between property wealth and educational opportunity in California, and what unintended consequence did it help trigger?

3. Compare People v. Hall and Perez v. Sharp—what do these cases reveal about the California Supreme Court's evolving role in civil rights?

4. If an FRQ asked you to explain how California's constitution can provide broader protections than the U.S. Constitution, which case would best illustrate free speech protections, and why?

5. Both People v. Anderson and In re Marriage Cases were later challenged by voter initiatives. What does this pattern suggest about the tension between judicial review and direct democracy in California?