Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our California newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (January 6, 2021, 4:40 PM EST) -- The California Judges Association has echoed Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye's request to California's governor that judges get priority in the state's vaccine rollout.
CJA President Thomas A. Delaney sent a letter Tuesday to Gov. Gavin Newsom, in support of a letter the chief justice sent last month asking that employees and members of the judiciary "not be far behind" in regard to vaccinating essential workers.
"CJA's request that court employees and judicial officers be considered a priority for vaccine distribution is simply due to the essential nature of the work of our courts and the unavoidable contact we have with both our multiple constituents, who have a constitutional right to access our services, and our many justice partners and stakeholders, who themselves utilize and or support those services," Delaney said in the letter.
Justice Cantil-Sakauye wrote to the governor two weeks before Christmas, according to the San Diego Tribune, which first reported about the letter on Jan. 3.
"We fully understand that there are others who should have first priority, but employees and members of the judiciary should not be far behind," the chief justice wrote.
Newsom has not publicly responded to the request and his office could not be reached for comment.
"Although it is clear that there are others who deserve higher priority, court employees and judicial officers should be afforded some level of priority, so that we may provide equal access to equal justice for everyone in an as timely a manner as possible," Delaney said. "Maintaining limited access for an extended period of time, or worse, suffering through continued and indefinite court closures, is not a viable option based on the essential nature of our work."
--Editing by Jill Coffey.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
