Supreme Court Oral Argument 2026-04 -06 - Apr 06, 2026

argument

Supreme Court Oral Argument 2026-04 -06

Supreme Court of California 2h 17m 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose of the California Supreme Court’s oral argument on April 6, 2026?

Unknown 0:10

Hear ye, hear ye. The Honorable Supreme Court sitting on bunk is now in session.

Unknown 0:24

Please be seated. Good morning and welcome to oral argument before the California Supreme Court. The clerk may call the calendar, please. Good morning. The Supreme Court of California hearing our arguments in Los Angeles on Monday, April 6th, 2026 and 98. Case number S287414, Sunflower Alliance, Plaintiff and Respondent versus California Department of Conservation et al. Defendants, Rebel California LLC, Real Part of Interest, and Appellant. For Respondent, Ms. Amanda Serpe. Call on Ms. Rina V. Dillon. California Natural Resources Agency and California Geologic and Energy Management Division, Ms. L. Nicole Allen. Case number S283639, John H. R. Doe, et al., plaintiffs and appellants, versus Mayorsville Joint Unified School District, defendant and respondent.

Unknown 1:20

For appellant, Mr. Shea S. Murphy. Correct. For respondent, Mr. Robert H. Wright. Correct. Case number S286297, the people plaintiff and respondent versus Christopher Lee Coffer, defendant and appellant for responding, Ms. Claudia Harvey Phillips. And for appellant, Ms. Mary Jo Sternan, appearing by video conference. Counsel, you're muted.

Mary Jo Strenod 1:46

Ready. Ready.

Unknown 1:55

Case number S283172 in Ray Thomas John Spielbauer on discipline. These matters continue to the early May calendar. Thank you. And the court is pleased to be joined on this case by the Honorable Justice Chavez from the Second District Court of Appeal. The court will call the first matter Sunflower Alliance versus the California Department of Conservation.

Unknown 2:35

Please proceed.

Amanda Zerbe 2:36

Good morning, your honors, and may it please the court. Amanda Zerbe for Petitioner and Respondent, Sunflower Alliance. Before this court, Rehobold advances in environmental, the startling contention that injecting approximately 460 million gallons of contaminated wastewater underground is a negligible expansion of a well that has only ever been used for oil and gas extraction. To make this argument, Raybould advances an environmental effects test that has no basis in the text of CEQA guidelines section 15301 or in the case law, and that the Court of Appeal adopted because it deemed its test to be a better approach than the text of section 15301. But there was no need to create that new test. The language of section 15301 and interpreting cases already set out a clear test for which projects qualify for the exemption,

Amanda Zerbe 3:34

The exemption only applies to minor alterations of existing facilities with negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. And this long-standing language, which case law directs must be construed narrowly, leaves no doubt about the proper result here. Rehobold proposes to drill out the old cement from an oil and gas well that was plugged 40 years ago and repurpose it for wastewater injection and disposal. That proposed project simply does not negligibly expand an existing or former use and is instead a different activity altogether.

Unknown 4:10

Can I step back a little bit in terms of the purpose of the laws in this area and the different tests that have been proposed? You have indicated that it's quite clear the focus should be on whether there has been a negligible or no expansion of use versus the environmental effects test is how you described it. How... Do courts go about making that determination of whether something is a negligible or no expansion of use? Is that something that is workable? And why isn't it appropriate, since the whole purpose underlying CEQA is to consider environmental effects of projects, why isn't that a proper consideration for the court to use instead?

Amanda Zerbe 4:55

Absolutely, Your Honor. So just as an initial point, courts have been making that determination for quite some time. And I think that they use the kind of ordinary language yardstick that we point to and that CNRA also points to, which is, is the expansion de minimis per Black's Law Dictionary? Or in CNRA's words, CNRA talks about something that is so small as to be unimportant. And yes, there can be challenges in the sort of technical component of how that might apply in particular cases.