In a strong showing which may indicate the Court's recognition of the importance of the issues raised, the California Supreme Court on December 23 agreed to hear the AFSA case against Oakland.

Six of the justices, including the one appointed by former Gov. Davis, Justice Moreno, voted to accept review. The only one missing was Justice Baxter. The granting of review only required four justices, so AFSA had more than what was needed.

Under California procedural rules, the Court of Appeal decision was depublished the moment review was granted and ceased to be citable precedent, at least in this state. Even though it was depublished, the Court of Appeal decision is what is under review. The Supreme Court can affirm, reverse or simply adopt verbatim the Court of Appeal decision, in whole or in part. Outright adoption is fairly rare. Normally, the California Supreme Court will write its own opinion addressing the key issues in the case. Unless the Court specified otherwise, which it has not so far, the issues for review are those set forth in AFSA's petition.

Once the briefing is completed, the Supreme Court will schedule oral argument. There is no set rule for when oral argument must be heard, and it can vary significantly from case to case. Unless the City seeks to have review expedited, it is unlikely that oral argument will occur before next summer, at the earliest. The trial court's stay of the effectiveness of the ordinance states that it will continue through Supreme Court review of the denial of AFSA's preliminary injunction motion. The Court of Appeal consolidated AFSA's appeal of that denial with the appeal of the grant of the City's summary judgment motion.