California Top Justice Pushes Court Access as ICE Activity Grows

California has seen an increase in federal immigration enforcement activity at state courthouses, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero said in a conversation with reporters Thursday, prompting the state to offer virtual appearances for those afraid to appear in court.

Federal immigration activity has taken place at least at 17 California courthouses, Guerrero said, with the bulk of enforcement operations happening in Shasta County in Northern California.

“The type of immigration enforcement action we’ve seen instills fear in witnesses, litigants, and creates problems for them being able to access the courts,” Guerrero said.

In addition to virtual appearances, state courts are also providing “know your rights” materials for the public in an effort to fight the “chilling effect” on courthouse appearances caused by immigration enforcement activities.

Though it’s not the intent of state courts to interfere with federal immigration enforcement responsibilities, “they can do their work outside of the courtroom,” she said.

The federal government issued a guidance document noting that it would take “very limited” enforcement actions in courthouses, but Guerrero said federal authorities have since not followed that document.

She acknowledged the state judiciary’s limitations when it comes to these issues though.

“The president’s not going to listen to me if I try to tell him what to do, so what really is the point of that?” Guerrero said. “I’m less interested in making statements trying to tell people what they’re doing wrong instead of trying to find a way forward so that our courts are informed.”

Guerrero noted that state court leadership has been in contact with California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office in an effort to try and anticipate unspecified “possible litigation strategies.” She acknowledged the hypothetical scenario of suing the federal administration in response to its immigration activity, but said “certain things have to fall into place” before that came to fruition.

The comments mark a progression while also echoing her comments last year when she said the judiciary was prepared to intervene, but noted the limits of the court’s ability to act.

Guerrero, who is the first Latina to serve as chief justice on California’s highest court, first entered judicial service as a San Diego County Superior Court judge in 2013. She was appointed to a state appellate court position in 2017, and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) nominated her to an associate justice position on the state Supreme Court in 2022. He nominated her to the chief justice position that year, and she was sworn into office in January 2023.

Justices serve 12-year terms on the state high court.

State Bar Fiasco

As the California Supreme Court awaits recommendations from the State Bar of California on how it wishes to proceed past last year’s “disaster” of a bar examination, Guerrero emphasized the need for sound logistics around the test’s future. She said the state’s high court has reservations about returning to a similar scenario that glitched and crashed widely for test takers in February 2025.

“Everyone has a different role to play, but we’re trying to ensure that we’re on the right track for the purposes of the students and the public,” Guerrero said.

It’s yet to be seen whether the state bar’s board of trustees will recommend a new California-specific exam or go with the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ “NextGen Bar Exam.” Guerrero highlighted that California-specific exams could offer remote opportunities for test takers, which weren’t available under the “NextGen approach.”

However, in the debate that has left bar leaders deeply divided, Guerrero cast her vote: “I feel more comfortable, just personally, with the NextGen format after having gone through the February fiasco,” Guerrero said.

An audit remains underway to hopefully illuminate where things went “off the rail” during last year’s exam, Guerrero said.

AI Use in Court

California courts began adopting their own artificial intelligence policies in December 2025 after other California justices workshopped a template with some foundational guidance around AI. The chief justice sees appropriate opportunities for AI to be utilized in the state court system, but emphasized it’s a tool better suited for “things on the margins” or can be used to “expedite business” operations in a clerk’s office.

“We’re not allowing AI to be used for purposes of the Supreme Court like writing opinions,” Guerrero said. “We’re not utilizing AI for writing reports or memos.”

Guerrero highlighted “very egregious” examples of California attorneys being sanctioned for misusing AI.

“I think those sanctions are important, that courts need to exercise oversight and monitor the use of AI, but we have to also be doing it ourselves,” Guerrero said.