California
California Supreme Court Justice Edward Panelli dies at 92
Justice Edward Panelli, who rose from a hardscrabble childhood in Depression-era Santa Clara Valley to the state’s highest court, died Saturday evening in Saratoga at the age of 92.
Panelli’s illustrious legal career spans six decades, beginning as a lawyer in the 1950s, then serving as a Superior Court judge before his appointment to the California Supreme Court in 1985. After retiring, he continued to work as an arbitrator, mediator, legal scholar and educator.
Panelli’s son, Jeff, told this newspaper he would like his father to be remembered as a “hardworking and humble” man, the son of Italian immigrants.
“He was a fair, hardworking man who came from very humble roots. He always kept his immigrant roots close to his heart and kept that as the driving force in his life,” Jeff said. “English was his second language. He never forgot his community and transcended political and idiological thought with common sense. He was a common man.”
In a previous conversation, Edward Panelli talked about his understanding of the human condition and how that affected his judicial career.
“I’ve kinda seen life from the street,” Panelli told Mercury News staff writer John Hubner in a 1986 interview for West magazine. “I know when to zig and when to zag, when to duck and when not to duck. I may not be Oliver Wendell Holmes, but I know what makes people tick. I know how they hurt and why they hurt. I’ve got a much broader feel of the world than if I’d come from a cloistered or protected environment.”
Panelli brought to his career the lessons of living without much.
He was born at home in Santa Clara to Italian immigrants. Pidale Panelli wrestled 100-pound gunnysacks of prunes; Natalina Panelli toiled in the packing sheds, sometimes two shifts a day. Young Edward learned the value of his own work in a field of onions, pulling them for 40 cents an hour.
He earned a tuition scholarship to Santa Clara University in 1949 and graduated with honors. After moving on to SCU’s law school, he finished at the top of his class. His father, who was 54 when Edward was born, died 10 days after his son passed the bar exam in 1955. The new lawyer married Lorna Mondora in 1956, and they had three sons. His mother was 95 when she died in 1990.
Panelli is survived by his sons, Tom, Jeff and Mike, and three grandchildren. Panelli’s wife died in 2019.
Panelli’s mentor at the university was the Rev. Patrick Donohoe, a Jesuit political science professor. When Donohoe later became SCU president, he directed some legal work to his former student, then practicing with cousin Louis Pasquinelli. Panelli later became an SCU trustee and chairman of the board in the 1980s.
His first appointment to the bench was in 1972 by then California Governor Ronald Reagan, and he served all manner of duty in 11 years as a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge: juvenile, civil, probate, family, and criminal courts.
“When I was a juvenile judge, I used to walk out of the courtroom and go around and talk to people,” Panelli said in the 1986 interview. “People would say, ‘Gee, you don’t act like a judge.’ I’d say, ‘If I start to act like a judge, maybe somebody ought to kick me in the ass.’”
He got to use his one-on-one skills after serving on the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. He then was appointed in San Jose by former Gov. Jerry Brown as presiding judge of the new 6th District appellate branch. In a storied settlement between litigants whose demands had been stuck for 18 months at $2 million vs. zero, Panelli managed a settlement at $665,000 in two days.
His jurisprudence changed dramatically with his next appointment in 1985.
In his eight years on the state Supreme Court, the death penalty did not define Panelli’s tenure, but it certainly dominated his first year in 1986.
Panelli had joined the court late in 1985, the first of Gov. George Deukmejian’s appointments, and he had to stand for reconfirmation the following fall. On the ballot, too, were justices Rose Bird, the chief, and Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin, as well as the court’s senior liberal, Stanley Mosk, and conservative Malcolm Lucas. Bird and the liberals had overturned numerous death penalty verdicts and were the targets of Deukmejian, a coalition of conservative politicians, and special-interest groups.
Panelli chose to distance himself from the battle — so much so that he chose to run in and complete the New York Marathon in under four hours two days before the November election. But he also acknowledged in the 1986 interview with Hubner that his tough upbringing didn’t forecast his stance:
“You would think that my background would incline me to be liberal because I’ve seen some injustices and had some economic difficulties. On the other hand, I tend to be conservative because I’ve been through it and I think, ‘By golly, if I can do it, why can’t everybody?’
“I tend to be a little bit more severe on punishment. I understand the impact environment has, but you can’t use that as an excuse. Growing up, I was always told that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you break the law and get caught, you’re going to pay a price. To me, that’s how the criminal justice system works.”
He survived the 1986 vote, but Bird, Reynoso, and Cruz didn’t, and the court gradually turned into a bench full of Republicans, with Mosk still serving in his late 80s (Mosk was 86 on Sept. 4, 1998).
Panelli said friends had known for years that he would probably serve only about 20 years as a judge. He could have retired with full pension benefits in March 1993 when he was 61 but said he delayed his departure until February 1994 after Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas asked him to stay on.
He was succeeded by Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, an appellate justice who had been Justice Panelli’s senior staff attorney during his first six years on the Supreme Court.
Panelli’s tenure in the California Supreme Court marked several noteworthy majority opinions. Chief among them was the ruling that surrogate-motherhood arrangements did not exploit poor women. “A surrogate’s agreement to bear another woman’s child is a valid contract,” he wrote.
There will be a memorial open to the public on Aug. 16 at 2 p.m. at Mission Santa Clara de Asis at 2 p.m.
Staff writer Ryan Macasero contributed to this story
Originally Published:
California
California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly
Wednesday, March 4, 2026 4:43AM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KABC) — A bill that would prevent police officers from moonlighting with federal immigration enforcement agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is advancing through the California State Assembly.
AB 1537 passed the State Assembly’s committee on public safety on Tuesday.
The bill also requires that officers report any offers for secondary employment related to immigration enforcement to their place of work.
Those failing to comply could face decertification as a peace officer in California.
The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, whose district includes Mar Vista, Ladera Heights, Mid-Wilshire and parts of South Los Angeles.
Copyright © 2026 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.
California
Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say
Newsom slams Trump amid U.S. military action in Iran
Newsom criticized Trump for spending little time acknowledging four U.S. service members killed in the conflict with Iran during recent remarks.
California Democrats running for governor, your party has a message for you. Think carefully about your candidacy and campaign ahead of the swiftly approaching filing deadline.
California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged candidates looking to assume the state’s highest office to “honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign” as March 6, the final day to declare candidacy, nears. Hicks said that concerns about the crowded field of Democrat candidates “persist” in an open letter on Tuesday, March 3.
It comes as five leading candidates, several of which are Democrats — Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Tom Steyer — are in a “virtual tie” per a recent poll, the Desert Sun reported, which is part of the USA TODAY Network.
Two Republican candidates pushing out California democrats in the gubernatorial bid may be “implausible,” but “it is not impossible,” Hicks said of the reasoning behind his latest message. Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, lead in RealClear Polling’s average of various polls.
The party chair spotlighted the need for California Democrats’ leadership, particularly over Proposition 50, the voter-approved measure that will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, paving the way for Democrats to secure more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“If in the unlikely event a Democrat failed to proceed to the general election for governor, there could be the potential for depressed Democratic turnout in California in November,” Hicks said. “The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025.”
During a press conference on March 2, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that when he is out in communities, people aren’t talking about the governor’s race. It’s an observation he called “interesting,” considering voting in the primary election starts in May.
“It’s been hard, I think, to focus on that race,” Newsom said, pointing to the attention on President Donald Trump, redistricting, and other matters.
What exactly is California Democratic Party asking of candidates?
In his open letter, Hicks gave directions to candidates.
First, assess your candidacy and campaign. If you don’t have a viable path to the general election, don’t file to get your name on the ballot for the primary election in June. Also, be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate by April 15 if you decide to file but can’t show “meaningful progress towards winning the primary election.”
When is the next California election? Primary election in 2026
California voters will trim the field of candidates for governor on June 2. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party preference, will move on to the November election.
Paris Barraza is a reporter covering Los Angeles and Southern California for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at pbarraza@usatodayco.com.
California
Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students
BAKERSFIELD, Calif.(KBAK/KBFX) — The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a California law that limited when schools could require staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, clearing the way for schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the students’ approval.
Rear view of multiracial students with hands raised in classroom at high school
The decision came after religious parents and educators, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged California school policies aimed at preventing staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said the ruling favors parents’ ability to be informed. “The Supreme Court today rules in favor of the claim of parents to be able to know the gender identity and gender pronoun of the children,” Chemerinsky said.
FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)
The decision temporarily blocks a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. The Thomas More Society called the decision a major victory for parents, saying the court found California’s policy likely violates constitutional rights.
Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court’s action is an emergency ruling. “This law is now put on hold. So what this means is that schools can require that teachers and other staff inform parents of the gender identity or gender pronouns of children,” he said.
Kathie Moehlig, founder and executive director of Trans Family Support Services, said she is concerned about how the ruling could affect students who do not have supportive families.
“I am really concerned about our kids that do come from these non affirming homes, that they know that they’re going to get in trouble, that they’re going to possibly have violence brought against them possibly kicked out of their homes,” Moehlig said.
Moehlig said parents should eventually know, but that the conversation should happen when a student feels safe. “Our students are going to be less inclined to confide in any adults that might be able to help to get them access to mental healthcare, to a support system. They may still tell their peers but they’re certainly not going to tell any other adult,” she said.
Equality California, a LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, shared a statement:
Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, released the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court shadow docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta regarding California’s student privacy protections for transgender youth. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in this case is deeply disturbing. By stepping in on an emergency basis, the Court has effectively upended California’s student privacy protections without hearing full arguments and before the judicial process has run its course. While not surprising, this move reflects a dangerous willingness to short-circuit the established judicial process to dismantle protections for transgender youth. While this case continues to be litigated, the ruling revives Judge Benitez’s prior decision, which broadly targets numerous California laws protecting transgender and gender-nonconforming students — threatening critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear. To be clear: today’s decision does not impact California’s SAFETY Act, which prohibits school districts from adopting policies that forcibly out transgender students. The SAFETY Act remains in full effect, and we will continue defending it. Transgender youth deserve dignity, safety, and the freedom to learn without fear. We will never stop fighting for transgender youth and their families. Equality California will continue working with parents, educators, and advocates to ensure schools remain safe, welcoming, and focused on the success and well-being of every student.
The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which will decide whether the California law is constitutional.
-
World6 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts7 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO7 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Oregon5 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Florida3 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Maryland3 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Culture1 week agoTry This Quiz on Thrilling Books That Became Popular Movies