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

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 deter mine s 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 attor ney fees before trial on a declaratory relief proceeding seeking to invalidate a muni cipal automated traffic citation. It disallowed a challenge on the citation because it asserted the red -light running camera operation was not a crime. The Questions Presented Are : 1. Whether a state anti -SLAPP statute, imposing $5,500 in attor ney fees and striking a portion of a motorist’s challenge , amounts to a penal ty 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? ii 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 appro priate to certify this ques tion for imme diate decision by the California Supreme Court? iii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS Supreme Court of California No. S290166 Barry Rosen, Plaintiff and Appellant , v. City of Hawthorne, Defendant and Respondent Date of Final Order : May 14, 2025 _ Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appel late District, Division Seven No. B337895 Barry Rosen, Plaintiff and Appellant , v. City of Hawthorne, Defendant and Respondent Date of Final Opinion : February 26, 2025 Date of Rehear ing Deni al: March 14, 2025 _ Superior Court of the State of California No. 23STLC01829 Barry Rosen, an individual, Plaintiff , v. City of Hawthorne, a California muni cipal corporation, Defendant Date of Final O rder : February 1, 202 4