California Judicial Ethics Committee Issues Opinion on Judges’ Disqualification Under Racial Justice Act

On Thursday, August 7, 2025, the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) issued an opinion addressing the disqualification and disclosure requirements for judges under the Racial Justice Act. This formal guidance clarifies the circumstances under which a judge who previously served as a prosecutor must recuse themselves from cases involving discovery motions related to the Act.

The CJEO concluded that a judge is not required to automatically disqualify themselves solely because of their former role as a district attorney handling cases that might be subject to discovery motions under the Racial Justice Act. However, the committee stipulated that disqualification is necessary if the judge was directly involved in prosecuting the current case or any prior case against the defendant. Furthermore, disqualification is warranted if there are circumstances that could reasonably lead to doubts about the judge’s impartiality.

In instances where judges opt not to disqualify themselves, they are required to disclose relevant facts on the record that informed their decision. This disclosure includes any considerations that led them to conclude their impartiality would not be compromised.

The CJEO’s opinion follows a public comment period that began with a draft opinion released in May. Judge Samantha Jessner, a member of the committee, emphasized that the opinion offers essential guidance for judges dealing with the complexities of Racial Justice Act claims, aiming to maintain public trust in the judiciary while ensuring that judges are not unnecessarily barred from cases due to their past prosecutorial experiences.

The CJEO is a 12-member advisory committee composed of appellate justices, trial court judges, retired judges, and a commissioner. Although appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, the committee operates independently. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily represent the views of the Supreme Court or other entities.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.