SAN FRANCISCO — The California Court of Appeal on Wednesday, stayed enforcement of a $26,000 contempt sanction against San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, pausing the penalty imposed by a Superior Court judge while underlying legal challenges proceed.
The stay remains in effect pending further action by the Superior Court, which must first rule on challenges brought by the Public Defender before the matter can move to the Court of Appeal.
According to the appellate court’s order, the court found that “absent exhaustion of petitioner’s writ remedy in the superior court, the petition before this court is premature,” and therefore denied the writ petition without prejudice while still granting temporary relief.
The order further states that the court “hereby STAYS enforcement of respondent’s March 24, 2026 contempt judgment to the extent that it requires petitioner to pay $26,000 in sanctions” before an imminent deadline, ensuring that payment is not required while the lower court considers the matter.
The stay is temporary and limited, with the court noting it “shall automatically dissolve upon respondent superior court’s ruling on petitioner’s stay request,” meaning further relief must first be obtained at the trial court level.
The underlying sanction stems from a March 24 ruling by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman, who imposed $1,000 penalties for each of multiple cases the Public Defender’s Office declined to accept, escalating a months-long dispute over whether courts can compel representation despite workload concerns.
The conflict followed earlier findings that Raju was in contempt for refusing to accept new cases, with the court rejecting the office’s position that it could determine when it had reached capacity.
Raju has argued that accepting additional cases would violate ethical and constitutional obligations.
“Our view is that the judge’s order is unconstitutional and illegal,” he said following the sanction.
He has consistently framed the dispute as one centered on the right to effective counsel, stating, “The San Francisco Public Defender’s Office remains unwavering in our constitutional duty to provide effective representation.”
At a press conference surrounding the contempt proceedings, Raju said, “When you represent a population like we do, that’s very vulnerable, it’s even more important that we represent them at a high level.”
The dispute arises amid what public defenders describe as a workload crisis. Raju’s office has reported significant increases in caseloads in recent years, arguing that taking on additional cases would compromise representation and create conflicts of interest for existing clients.
Judge Dorfman, however, rejected that reasoning, asserting judicial authority over case assignments.
“The court is not a bystander in this,” Dorfman said, adding that “the law compels the court to appoint a public defender when necessary.”
The sanction and underlying contempt finding have drawn criticism from public defense leaders nationwide, who argue the case reflects broader structural failures in indigent defense systems.
April Frazier Camara, president and CEO of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, said, “It is imperative that public defenders operate independently and determine the volume of cases that their offices can handle.”
Ellen McDonnell, chief public defender for Contra Costa County, added, “Judges are not equipped to determine the correct volume of cases public defenders can handle, and we commend Mano Raju for standing strong to defend the right to effective counsel.”
Danny Engelberg, chair of the American Council of Chief Defenders, warned that the sanction could worsen existing challenges, stating that the contempt order “will create an additional burden on adequately defending clients.”
Raju has maintained that his office continues to accept the vast majority of cases while declining a limited number when workloads exceed ethical limits, describing the move as necessary to uphold constitutional standards rather than defy the court.
His legal team, including Kory DeClark, argued that appellate review is essential before sanctions are enforced.
“We agree with the Court of Appeal that no sanctions should issue before a reviewing court has an opportunity to evaluate the merits of the novel issues this case raises,” DeClark said. “We are confident that, when that happens, the contempt judgment against Mr. Raju will be overturned.”
The Court of Appeal also indicated that any renewed petition must address procedural issues, including identifying “any real parties in interest for purposes of the petition and the relief requested,” and must include a complete record from the superior court proceedings.
In addition, the clerk was directed to ensure that the presiding judge of the San Francisco Superior Court is immediately notified of the order.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
