Presiding Judge Rochelle East ruled on Oct. 8 that the challenge was made in bad faith, according to attorneys who were in court. East had initially approved the objection two days earlier, after Chief Assistant District Attorney Ana Gonzalez argued that Tong had shown bias against prosecutors and law enforcement.

The dispute began when the DA’s office repeatedly used a procedure known as a “170.6” to seek Tong’s removal from cases. The procedure generally allows an attorney to request a different judge for a single case without having to prove bias. But a California Supreme Court ruling in May opened the door for opponents of blanket challenges to argue that an officewide effort is in bad faith and require its proponents to demonstrate bias.

Defense attorneys invoked that ruling on Oct. 6 to contest the DA’s challenge. Gonzalez cited instances she said showed prejudice, including Tong once describing a police officer as “shady.” East initially found the challenge was made in good faith after Gonzalez said Tong had previously told prosecutor Aaron Laycook she would “get even” with him.

East reheard the matter two days later, reviewing a written declaration from Tong and hearing testimony from Laycook. She then found the DA’s officewide objection was made in bad faith. Individual prosecutors may still object to particular cases before Tong, but the entire office cannot refuse to appear in her courtroom.

The DA’s office said it would respect the ruling and has since withdrawn its remaining challenges to Tong. It also said it would exercise its legal rights when it has a good-faith belief it cannot receive a fair hearing. Tong’s courtroom has continued operating normally.

The ruling could affect a practice that both prosecutors and defense attorneys have used to push judges off assignments. In 2022, the DA’s office filed a blanket challenge against retired appellate Justice J. Anthony Kline, who was later moved from his assignment. In February, the public defender’s office made a similar blanket challenge against former Drug Court Judge Murlene Randle, who was also moved.

Tong has faced repeated challenges. When she moved from civil to criminal court in early 2025, prosecutors’ blanket refusal to appear before her delayed more than 340 cases before she was returned to civil court. The city attorney’s office also filed a blanket challenge against her earlier this year, and that objection was sustained.

Rose Mishaan, a private defense attorney who has opposed blanket challenges, called East’s decision a victory for the rule of law and separation of powers. She said the new standard could prevent offices from using the procedure to effectively remove judges from the courthouse.

Eric Fish, a UC Davis law professor who studies judicial disqualification, said the Supreme Court ruling can apply to both prosecutors and defense attorneys seeking to exclude a judge from all cases. The San Francisco dispute was the first time attorneys he spoke with had seen the new standard applied locally.