Judge Ends San Francisco District Attorney Boycott

A presiding judge ruled that the San Francisco District Attorney's office cannot issue blanket boycotts against a sitting judge.

Updated on Oct. 15, 2026 in Criminal Justice

Judge Ends San Francisco District Attorney Boycott

Live Poll

Should local prosecutors be allowed to systematically boycott judges they believe are biased?

Presiding Judge Rochelle East has officially reversed a policy that allowed the District Attorney's office to refuse to appear before Judge Michelle Tong. The decision follows a finding that the office's blanket boycott was conducted in bad faith.

Why it matters

The ruling resolves a contentious standoff that led to significant court delays and questions regarding judicial independence. It reinforces legal standards established by the state's highest court regarding how prosecutors may challenge judges.

The District Attorney's office has formally rescinded its remaining challenges against Judge Michelle Tong. This action follows a rehearing where Judge East reviewed a written declaration from Judge Tong and testimony from prosecutors.

The players

Rochelle East

She serves as the Superior Court Presiding Judge who conducted the rehearing and issued the ruling regarding judicial boycotts.

Michelle Tong

She is the judge who was the subject of the District Attorney's blanket refusal to appear in court.

J.O. v. Superior Court

This is the California Supreme Court case that established legal standards for challenging blanket judicial boycotts as being made in bad faith.

The details

Defense attorneys utilized the California Supreme Court's ruling in J.O. v. Superior Court to contest the District Attorney's objections as illegal. The District Attorney's office had originally justified the boycott by claiming Judge Tong demonstrated bias against law enforcement and prosecutors.

In 2022, the DA office filed a blanket objection against J. Anthony Kline.
In early 2025, the DA office issued a blanket refusal against Judge Tong.
In May 2026, the California Supreme Court ruled on bad faith challenges.
On October 6, 2026, defense attorneys challenged the DA's boycott.
On October 8, 2026, Judge East reversed the ruling against Judge Tong.

Legal Context

This ruling aligns with broader shifts in California law regarding the limits of prosecutorial discretion in the courtroom. It follows the precedent set by the J.O. v. Superior Court ruling, which allows defense attorneys to challenge blanket judicial boycotts.

The end of the boycott aims to reduce court backlogs that previously hindered the timely resolution of criminal cases. Residents involved in the justice system may now see more consistent case scheduling and fewer administrative delays.

The takeaway

The court's decision reinforces the requirement that judicial challenges must be based on individual case facts rather than blanket policies. It signals a move toward restoring standard operations within the criminal court system.