California wrote the law to fight racial injustice; now it's up to the courts to follow it

As a member of California's legislative branch, I fully appreciate and respect our separation of powers. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch to write the law and for the courts to apply it fairly, case-by-case. However, in the face of unprecedented racial disparities and continued roadblocks in courts to apply the law, there comes a time when we must demand more from our systems of power.

In OSPD v. Bonta (S284496, filed Apr. 2024), a coalition of five prominent legal and human rights organizations filed a state constitutional challenge to California's death penalty scheme in the California Supreme Court. At issue is the state's racially discriminatory imposition of the death penalty, supported by truly shameful statistics: in our state, Black defendants are up to 8.7 times, and Latino defendants are up to 6.2 times more likely to be sentenced to death than other defendants. And defendants of all races are up to 8.8 times more likely to be sentenced to death when at least one of the victims is white. Petitioners allege that these stark disparities contravene the equal protection and cruel or unusual punishment clauses of the state Constitution.

The California legislative branch is doing its part to provide the judicial branch tools to rid the criminal legal system of racial bias. The people's representatives enacted a bill I proudly authored, the California Racial Justice Act (RJA), which prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction or sentence based on race, ethnicity or national origin. Among other things, the RJA seeks to allow individuals, case-by-case, charged or sentenced to challenge racial disparities and specifically forbids the use of racially discriminatory language in criminal prosecutions. With mounting disturbing evidence of racial disparities in convictions and clear legislative intent for the courts to do their part, we cannot accept judicial resistance.

Recently, California courts have shown an unwillingness to fairly implement the RJA even when prosecutors have conceded violations. For instance, in People v. Wilson (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1020, the 2nd District Court of Appeal rejected the attorney general's concession that calling the Black defendant a "gorilla pimp" violates the RJA, concluding it is a "term of art" in sex trafficking. The Supreme Court denied review. In People v. Wagstaff (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1207, the 6th District Court of Appeal rejected the attorney general's concession that a judge who called the Black defendant a "strong young buck" violated the RJA; the court held the claim was forfeited. The California Supreme Court again denied review. In In re Huerta (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 162, the 5th District Court of Appeal held that the RJA does not allow challenges based on disparities in sentencing enhancements, which implicitly extends to special circumstances and strikes. The Attorney General agrees with appellant that this was wrong, and the California Supreme Court ordered the 5th District to reconsider the issue.

Will the judicial branch recognize the will of the people to address racial disparities or continue to try to minimize the impact of the RJA?

This question will be put to the test when OSPD v. Bonta is heard in California's highest court and will be an opportunity to address proven racial discrimination on a statewide, rather than case-by-case, basis in our most consequential cases, in which the death penalty is at stake. Given lower courts' resistance toward the RJA, case-by-case dispositions have proven unreliable and unpredictable. I have authored subsequent bills to clarify legislative intent and guide the courts to streamline the RJA. But the courts' reluctance to have a more uniform implementation of the RJA makes it even more vital that the California Supreme Court take up OSPD v. Bonta to address whether egregious racial disparities in the implementation of the death penalty can be squared with the guarantees of our state Constitution.

The California Supreme Court must adhere to its longstanding tradition of enforcing the state Constitution's independent promise of equal justice. With so much on the line in OSPD v. Bonta and future cases involving the RJA, it is imperative that Governor Newsom contemplates nominees for the vacancy on the Supreme Court that will uphold these ideals and apply the law fairly to all. Our branches of government work best when we have a unified goal, and in this moment, addressing egregious racial disparities in our criminal legal system is a just goal.