News & Publications

In rare instances, the California Supreme Court takes up a case in which there is only one party.  While such cases are important, their posture leaves the Court without the benefits of the adversarial system:  Receiving briefs from two, opposing vantage points allows the Supreme Court to best evaluate and decide critical legal issues that impact the state.  So in those rare cases, the Supreme Court will appoint attorneys to argue that the Court of Appeal’s opinion is correct.

The California Supreme Court recently reached out to and appointed Jeffrey Raskin and Stefan Love of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland (GMSR) to brief and argue, on a pro bono basis, in support of a Court of Appeal opinion as to which the Supreme Court had granted review.  The case involves important issues concerning the role of California courts in issuing findings that can support a child’s efforts to secure Special Immigrant Juvenile status from the federal government.  Given the importance and time sensitive nature of the case, the appointment required Mr. Raskin and Mr. Love to produce multiple briefs under tight, immovable deadlines, all at the quality that we demand whenever our firm files briefs before the Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court.

GMSR has always maintained a strong commitment to pro bono work and to social justice issues.  That includes GMSR’s pro bono work in support of immigrants and many years of support for several of the organizations that appeared as amici on behalf of the petitioner here.  As part of that commitment and as officers of the court, Mr. Raskin and Mr. Love answered the Supreme Court’s call to brief the positions adopted in the Court of Appeal opinion—positions that, in the Court of Appeal’s view, are necessary to allowing juvenile immigrants to obtain the type of findings that can meaningfully allow them to obtain the federal immigration status that they seek.

• Click HERE to learn more about GMSR’s commitment to pro bono work and social justice issues.

• Click HERE to get updates on this case from GMSR’s California Supreme Court Watch.