In the Supreme Court of the State of California
6XSUHPH&RXUWRI&DOLIRUQLD -RUJH(1DYDUUHWH&OHUNDQG([HFXWLYH2IILFHURIWKH&RXUW
(OHFWURQLFDOO\5(&(,9('RQDW30
6XSUHPH&RXUWRI&DOLIRUQLD -RUJH(1DYDUUHWH&OHUNDQG([HFXWLYH2IILFHURIWKH&RXUW (OHFWURQLFDOO\),/('RQE\0$OIDUR'HSXW\&OHUN
In the Supreme Court of the State of California
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; PALM LANE CHARTER SCHOOL; JUAQUIN CRUZ; ANGELA MILLER; and CECILIA OCHOA,
Petitioners, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California, SANDRA SHEWRY, in her official capacity as the State Public Health Officer and Department of Public Health Director,
Respondents.
Case No. S264065
Original Petition for Writ of Mandate
5(6321'(176? PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE
XAVIER BECERRA
*JOSHUA N. SONDHEIMER
Attorney General of California
Deputy Attorney General
CHERYL L. FEINER
State Bar No. 152000
Senior Assistant Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue,
GREGORY D. BROWN
Suite 11000
Supervising Deputy Attorney General San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 510-4420
Fax: (415) 703-5480
Joshua.Sondheimer@doj.
Attorneys for Respondents
Governor Gavin Newsom and
State Public Health Officer and
Director of the Department of
Public Health Sandra Shewry, in
their official capacities
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction................................................................................... 10 Background ................................................................................... 12 Legal Standards Applicable to the Petition ................................ 19 Reasons the Petition Should Be Denied ...................................... 21
I. The Court Should Decline to Exercise Its Original Jurisdiction................................................. 21
II. Petitioners Fail to Identify Any Relevant Ministerial Duty or Basis for Writ Relief ................ 25
III. The Challenged Directive Is A Constitutional ([HUFLVH2I7KH*RYHUQRU?V(PHUJHQF\3RZHU And Public Health Statutes to Respond to a Pandemic ................................................................... 27 A. Standard of Judicial Review of a State Public-Health Emergency............................... 27 B. RespondeQWV?2UGHUV'R1RW9LRODWH 6WXGHQWV?5LJKWVWR(TXDO3URWHFWLRQ ............ 30 1. 5HVSRQGHQWV?2UGHUV7UHDW Students Throughout the State Equally .................................................. 32 2. 5HVSRQGHQWV?2UGHUV'R1RW5HVXOW in Differences Between Districts that Fall Below Any Identified Prevailing Statewide Education Standards .............................................. 34 3. The State Has Already Taken Unprecedented Action in Response to Disparities that May Arise from Distance Learning................................. 38
IV. Petitioners Have Not Established That The 6WDWH?V5HVSRQVHWRWKH3DQGHPLF,V8QODZIXO....... 39
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
A. Petitioners Cannot Establish A Claim for Violation of Federal Disability Statutes ........ 39
B. Petitioners Lack Any Right of Action for Alleged Violations of Title VI Regulations .... 46
V. The Executive Orders and Public Health Directives Are Reasonable and Supported .............. 46
Conclusion ..................................................................................... 48
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Abeel v. Clark (1890) 84 Cal. 226 ................................................................... 28, 29
Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280 ..................................................................... 30
Adams v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 146 ..................................................................... 22
Albino v. Baca (9th Cir. 2014) 747 F.3d 1162 (en banc)....................................... 41
Alexander v. Sandoval (2001) 532 U.S. 275....................................................................... 46
American Coatings Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 446.................................................................... 21
Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior Court (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 903 .......................................................... 19
Best Supplement Guide, LLC v. Newsom, et al. (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2020) No. 2:20-cv-00965-JAM-CKD, 2020 WL 2615022 ............................................................................ 28, 37
Blanchard v. Morton School Dist. (9th Cir. 2007) 509 F.3d 934......................................................... 40
Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808...................................................................... 22
Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668 (Butt) ....................................................passim
Cal. Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231.................................................................... 22
4
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
Page
City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare (2007) 41 Cal.4th 859.................................................................... 20
Cross Culture Christian Ctr. v. Newsom (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2020) __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 2:20-cv-00832JAM-CKD, 2020 WL 2121111 ...................................................... 28
Diaz?Barba v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1470 ........................................................ 30
'RHY$UL]RQD'HS?WRI(GXF (9th Cir. 1997) 111 F.3d 678......................................................... 43
Forest Grove v. T.A. (2009) 557 U.S. 230 (2009) ........................................................... 44
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (2017) 137 S. Ct 743...................................................................... 41
Gish v. Newsom (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020) No. EDCV20-755-JGB (KKx)), 2020 WL 1979970 ............................................................................ 13, 29
Givens v. Newsom (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2020) No. 2:20-cv-00852-JAM-CKD, 2020 WL 2307224 .................................................................................. 28
Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 1992) 967 F.2d 1298....................................................... 42
Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11................................................................... 27, 29
Klajic v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 987 ............................................................ 20
Lake Washington School Dist. No. 414 v. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (9th Cir. 2011) 634 F.3d 1065....................................................... 40
5
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
Related searches
- supreme court of new york
- was the supreme court always 9
- map of the state of florida
- the strategic importance of the island of socotra
- secretary of the state of missouri
- history of the state of alabama
- supreme court of idaho
- map of the state of maine
- supreme court of georgia probate court forms
- landmark supreme court cases civics state exam
- secretary of the state of ct
- how did the supreme court rule today