Supreme Court Oral Argument 2025-12 -03 - Dec 03, 2025

argument

Supreme Court Oral Argument 2025-12 -03

Supreme Court of California 2h 23m 3 speakers 7 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What does the court’s opening and case‑call introduction cover?

0:06

Yeah.

Unknown 0:11

The honorable Supreme Court sitting up on is now accepted.

An unnamed Chief Justice (Unknown) 0:29

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to oral argument before the California Supreme Court. I understand that we're joined here today by six students with their teacher, Mr. Dunkel, from Notre Dame Academy in West LA. That yes, welcome. Thank you. We hope you enjoy the session here today. The clerk may call the calendar, please.

Unknown 0:53

Good morning, the Supreme Court of California here in Oregon in Los Angeles on Wednesday, december third, two thousand twenty five at nine AM. Case number S two A four three three three three three three seven eight, Shear Development Company LLC. Plenty of an appellant versus California Coastal Commission defending and app and responding. For reply, Mr. Jeremy Tackle. and for responding, Ms. Kara McConnell Newland. Case number S two eight six four nine three. The people plaintiff and respondent versus Henry Morgan. Defendant and appellant. for appelling Miss Maria Leftwich. Corresponding Mr. Ma Basil Williams.

An unnamed Chief Justice (Unknown) 1:30

Thank you, calling the first matter, shared development versus the California Coastal Commission.

Jeremy Talcott 1:52

Thank you, Chief Justice, Your Honors. Uh Jeremy Talcott appearing on behalf of Sheer Development. May it please the court. In the California Coastal Act, the legislature crafted a careful compromise between state control and local discretion. But the Coastal Commission has upended that compromise, claiming unfettered discretion to reinterpret local ordinances at will and impose those interpretations on both local governments and the courts. Worse still, the Commission now asks this court to abdicate its duty by avoiding the question upon which your honors have granted review, based on the amendment of unrelated provisions and half hearted promises that they will abide by those new terms. For all the complicated uh web of terms and provisions that are at issue in this matter.

Jeremy Talcott 2:38

The core question is relatively simple. First, do core questions of fundamental agency jurisdiction require true independent judgment by the courts, or may something less suffice? And second, are local governments entitled to deference as to their own interpretations and discretionary decisions made under those certified LCPs?

An unnamed Chief Justice (Unknown) 2:58

Do we get to either of those questions now given the amendment to the LCP?

Jeremy Talcott 3:03

Yes, Your Honor, regardless of those amendments, there Virtually unrelated to the core questions at issue here and Further the uh The amendments and this and the language within them kind of underscores the problem that we have. Uh the Court of Appeal uh already interpreted an L C P that unambiguously excluded areas within urban Los Osos from mapped Esche, and yet it accepted a single figure, figure six-three, and found jurisdiction on the basis of that loan figure.

An unnamed Chief Justice (Unknown) 3:34

How do we get to that? question. So the fundamental question of whether the commission had jurisdiction under the former LCP. How do we even get to that question now that there's a new L C P and the parties are in agreement that the area here, the proposed development, is not uh S C A R or S R A?

Jeremy Talcott 3:56

Uh Yes, Your Honor, I think first and foremost it's important to note that the uh In general, with questions of a writ petition permit review, courts apply the standards that were in place at the time of the final approval of those permits. There it is actually the exception to the rule that a court would apply something retroactively, and it is only where the legislature has unambiguously intended those provisions to apply retroactively. What about the general

Goodwin H. Liu 4:24

active? If the question the question at the end of the day, as I understand it, is whether or not Shear Development gets the development permit that San Luis Obispo originally granted, right? That is still a live question in this proceeding because the decision whether or not that permit should be granted is not yet final. It's still pending in the course of this proceeding. So why would it be an impermissibly retroactive application of the new local coastal plan to look at that plan, which the parties seem to agree?