Executive Summary

The California Supreme Court and the California District Courts of Appeal are responsible for all constitutional deliberations within the California state court system. This report examines the diversity of California’s two highest courts to quantify Latino representation in these institutions. Our examination of the judicial bench is intersectional and investigates the representation of racial and ethnic identities, gender, age, and career pathways among our current justices.

Ensuring that the judicial bench mirrors the diversity of California holds a dual imperative: it signifies a dedication to inclusivity and diversity, and it can enhance the fairness of judicial outcomes through the diverse perspectives and experiences justices bring to decision-making processes. Representation plays a vital role in building public trust in governing institutions, fostering civic participation, and improving government responsiveness to the needs of its diverse constituents. Many studies also suggest that diversity on the bench may improve judicial decisions, given that justices bring their identities and personal experiences to bear on their decisions and those of their colleagues. Therefore, fostering a more inclusive and representative judiciary that reflects the spectrum of diverse experiences and perspectives within the legal profession is essential.

The findings of this report enrich existing demographic reporting by the state government. As part of Government Code section 12011.5(n), the Judicial Council of California publishes yearly demographic profiles on the gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity, and veteran and disability status of California’s court justices. These yearly publications have helped to bring Latino underrepresentation on the bench to light. However, this report supplements these findings through a more intersectional analysis of the race, gender, and personal trajectories of justices across the state’s highest courts today.

Key Findings:

• Latinos are the only major racial/ethnic group that has never had more than one justice on the California Supreme Court at any given time. 
  • In its first 127 years (from 1849 to 1976), the Supreme Court consisted of only white male justices. In 1977, the governor appointed the Supreme Court’s first Black male and white female justices. The first Latino justice was appointed in 1982, and the first Asian American or Pacific Islander (AAPI) justice was appointed in 1989.
  • Since the 1980s, there have been four instances in which two or more AAPI and Black justices have sat on the bench simultaneously. However, the Supreme Court has never had more than one Latino justice on the bench at any given time.
• Latinos are the most underrepresented racial/ethnic group on the state’s District Courts of Appeal.
  • Despite making up 39.7% of the state’s population, Latinos comprise only 12.3% of justices on the Courts of Appeal, a 27.4 percentage point gap in Latino representation. In comparison, the District Courts of Appeal is 57.5% white, 10.4% AAPI, and 10.4% Black. There are no Native American or Alaskan Native justices on the District Courts of Appeal.
  • The most prominent Latino representation gap is within the Fifth District. In this District, over 55.3% of its constituency is Latino, but they only make up 20% of the bench – a 35.3 percentage point gap in Latino representation. Moreover, the Sixth District notably has no Latino justices, even though 32.4% of the population under its jurisdiction is Latino.
  • The Third District has the lowest gap in Latino representation: 9.1% of its justices are Latino, and its constituency is 25.5% Latino (16.4 percentage point gap in representation).
• Among racial/ethnic groups represented on the bench, Latinas are the only group completely unrepresented in four out of the six District Courts of Appeal. 
  • Only two out of the 106 District Courts of Appeal justices are Latina despite making up 19.6% of the state’s population. In comparison, non-Hispanic white women make up 26.4% of the Courts of Appeal, AAPI women make up 7.5%, and Black women 5.7%. There are no Native American or Alaskan Native women justices on the bench.
  • The First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Districts lack a Latina justice. In comparison, Black women lack representation on the Sixth and Fifth Districts, and AAPI women are missing from the Fifth District.
• Racial and ethnic diversity is poor among men on the District Courts of Appeal.
  • Latino justices are missing in two districts (Sixth and Third).
  • The Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Districts lack AAPI men on the bench, whereas the Third District has no Black men
  • The Third District lacks justices who are men of color.
• Justices of color tend to be the youngest justices on the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal.
  • The average white justice on the courts today is 68 years old, whereas Latino, Black, and AAPI justices average 59 years of age.
  • White justices hold 57.9% of the courts’ 19 Presiding and Chief Justice positions. In comparison, only 15.8% are held by Latinos, 15.8% by AAPI, and 5.3% by Black justices.
• Governor Jerry Brown appointed most of today’s judicial bench (39%), but Governor Gavin Newsom has made significant strides in diversifying the court.
  • As of August 2024, 39% of seated justices on the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal were appointed by Governor Brown, who served as California’s governor from 2011 to 2019.
  • Governor Newsom has appointed a third of seated justices on the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, 53% of which were justices of color.
  • Additionally, Governor Newsom has appointed 57% of Latino justices and 50% of Black justices on the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal today.
• The top two most common professional experiences shared among justices on the District Courts of Appeal are 1) serving as a justice on another court (86%) and 2) working as a private attorney (80%).
  • Serving as a justice on another court was popular among all Courts of Appeal justices, regardless of race/ethnicity. All Latinas, Black women, and AAPI men justices have this experience. However, experience serving in another court is less prevalent among Black men; only 40% served in another court before their appointment.
  • Private industry experience was comparatively lower among Latinas. Only 50% of Latina justices have worked in a private firm or practice, compared to 100% of AAPI men, 82.1% of white women, and 78.8% of white men.
  • Only 11% of District Courts of Appeal justices have experience in public defense roles. Among District Courts of Appeal justices, AAPI women (37.5%) were most likely to have experience in public defense roles, followed by Black men (20%). All other racial and ethnic groups have minimal or no experience in public defense.
• Supreme Court justices’ most common professional experiences include private law, government law, prosecution, and academia.
  • 85.7% of Supreme Court justices previously held legal roles in private firms and companies.
  • 71.4% of Supreme Court justices previously held positions in academic institutions, serving as adjunct professors or visiting lecturers/scholars.
  • 71.4% of Supreme Court justices previously worked in government law. Justices with experience in government law were split between working for the U.S. Department of Justice non-criminal divisions and serving within the California governor’s executive cabinet.

Policy Recommendations:

1. The California State Legislature or the governor should establish a Diversity Compliance Task Force to monitor and enhance diversity in judicial appointments.
2. The California State Legislature should strengthen and clarify its commitment to representation in the judiciary by amending California Government Code § 12011.5 to explicitly set a goal of “proportional representation” on the bench.
3. Bar associations and community stakeholders should be more proactive in endorsing and recruiting well-qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds through the appointment process. This should include demystifying the endorsement process, strengthening coordination among bar associations, and expanding endorsements at the Superior Court level.
4. The California State Legislature and the governor should reduce variability in the state’s regional Judicial Selection Advisory Committees (JSACs) appointments process by collaborating on an amendment to Government Code § 12011.5, which would incorporate statutory requirements for JSAC evaluations.
5. The California State Legislature should improve the transparency and integrity of the Commission on Judicial Nominee Evaluation (JNE) by amending Government Code § 1201.5 (n)(1) to expand requirements for statewide demographic data on judicial applicants and mandate that the State Bar establish a permanent task force to oversee funding allocations and procedural amendments to JNE.
6. The governor should ask the county bars to publicize and standardize their evaluation committee and procedures.
7. Educational institutions and philanthropy should invest in improving pathways to high-quality legal education for Latinos and other underrepresented communities by building from existing state work programs, expanding financial support, and diversifying alumni associations.
8. The California State Legislature and philanthropy should invest in clerkship programs and court experience for underrepresented law students by creating new and targeted post-legal judicial clerkships and expanding judiciary experience for underrepresented students.
9. The California State Legislature should expand the California Judicial Mentor Program by funding its efforts and amending California Government Code § 12011.5 to require the program to establish and report success metrics.
10. The Judicial Council should increase equitable access to Pro Tempore positions on the District Courts of Appeal by establishing a formalized application process for assigning sitting pro tempore positions.
11. The California State Legislature should ensure that judicial salaries are commensurate with the skills and experience of qualified legal professionals, by commissioning a comprehensive study of judicial salaries that assesses judicial pay levels relative to the average salaries of senior associates and legal professionals in comparable regional contexts.