The California judiciary participates in red-light running camera ticket projects because it collects court fees from alleged violators as do the government entities operating them. "Courts are the central dispute settling institutions in our society. They are bound to do equal justice under law, to rich and poor alike. . . . Where money determines not merely the kind of trial a [person] gets, but whether [he/she] gets into court at all, the great principal of equal protection becomes a mockery." Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 389 (1971) (Brennan, J, concurring). The California Court of Appeal limited a motorist's exercise of the Petition Clause with California's anti-SLAPP statute before trial on the merits in a challenge to the government's compliance with the Vehicle Code. It affirmed a trial court's award of $5,500 in anti-SLAPP attorney fees before trial on a declaratory relief proceeding seeking to invalidate a municipal automated traffic citation. It disallowed a challenge on the citation because it asserted the red-light running camera operation was not a crime.

1. Whether a state anti-SLAPP statute, imposing $5,500 in attorney fees and striking a portion of a motorist's challenge, amounts to a penalty and prior restraint in a motorist's petition to the government for redress of grievance concerning the validity of $490 criminal-infraction red-light camera ticket under California's Vehicle Code?

2. Whether the California Court of Appeal erred by refusing to declare the motorist the victor over the government because the trial court maintained the declaratory relief action for trial?

3. Whether grant of certiorari is appropriate to certify this question for immediate decision by the California Supreme Court?

Whether a state anti-SLAPP statute imposing attorney fees and striking a motorist's challenge amounts to a penalty and prior restraint in a petition for redress of grievance concerning a red-light camera ticket