A California appeals court ruled that judges can deviate from a $0 bail rule set by the state's judicial governing body in an effort to reduce incarcerated populations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

California's Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the San Diego Superior Court in a case that challenged the state court's assertion that it is free to depart from Emergency Rule 4, which the Judicial Council of California adopted to establish a statewide Emergency Bail Schedule setting $0 bail for misdemeanors and some felonies.

The Superior Court implemented the rule with the caveat that it could raise the bail request to "assure the appearance of the defendant or protect public safety," but more than 100 petitioners whose bail was raised above $0 or strapped with conditions claimed the court did not have the authority to pivot from the rule on a case-by-case basis, according to the opinion published Wednesday.

However, the appeals court found that the court did indeed have that authority, and that it was not infringing on petitioners' federal or state constitutional rights.

"The Judicial Council did not intend to suspend the array of statutes governing bail, as well as the superior court's inherent authority, which allow the court to depart from the scheduled bail amount or impose bail conditions in individual cases under appropriate circumstances," wrote Associate Justice Patricia Guerrero, joined by Administrative Presiding Justice Judith McConnell and Associate Justice Richard Huffman.

The guidance was one of 11 rules the Judicial Council set amid the pandemic. On March 27, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order granting the Judicial Council unprecedented authority to enact rules to keep the courts running safely during the pandemic. As part of the order, courts must notify the sheriff's watch commander at the prospective detention facility in order to raise or change bail conditions.

The petitioners, whom prosecuting agencies in the San Diego area identified for bail raises or conditions, sought a writ of mandate asking the Superior Court to roll back its selective implementation of the rule.

In the decision, Guerrero said the rule does not unilaterally mandate $0 bail, regardless of the circumstances of a case.

"Instead, it adopts a statewide Emergency Bail Schedule, under which bail for the covered offenses is zero dollars," she wrote. "At the very least, the rule's focus on a bail schedule, which has an established meaning and function in setting bail that is not mandatory, introduces ambiguity regarding the superior court's authority to depart from the zero bail amount under Emergency Rule 4. The rule can reasonably be interpreted, as urged by the district attorney, to preserve the court's existing authority to increase bail from the scheduled zero bail amount if the circumstances and existing statutes allow such a departure."

Petitioners had argued that interpreting the rule to establish statewide bail schedules while keeping in place existing statutes for setting bail for individual defendants leads to "absurd results" because it will not reduce jail populations, according to the opinion.

Yet, the court pointed to "numerous individuals" in San Diego County who were released, "including dozens of defendants in pretrial custody and two of the three named postconviction petitioners."

"The effect of the statewide Emergency Bail Schedule is to set the presumptive bail amount at zero dollars for the covered offenses. If bail is to be set above that amount—for example, in the amount previously specified in the countywide bail schedule—it must be justified," the justices found.