US Chamber of Commerce Urges Supreme Court to Block California Laws on Climate Change Disclosure
The US Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, seeking to block two new California laws that require companies to disclose their emissions and climate change impacts. The laws, set to take effect on January 1, would affect thousands of companies doing business in California, and the Chamber argues that they violate the 1st Amendment by forcing companies to speak on a “deeply controversial topic.”
The two laws in question, Senate Bill 261 and Senate Bill 253, require companies to assess and disclose their climate-related financial risks and emissions. The Chamber argues that these laws amount to “unconstitutional compelled speech” and that no state can violate 1st Amendment rights to set climate policy for the nation. The appeal states that “compelled-speech laws are presumptively unconstitutional — especially where, as here, they dictate a value-laden script on a controversial subject such as climate change.”
Background and Context
The California laws were widely celebrated by environmental advocates when they were passed, with the nonprofit California Environmental Voters describing them as a “game-changer not just for our state but for the entire world.” Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who authored SB 253, said that the laws were “a simple but powerful tool in the fight to tackle climate change.” Michael Gerrard, a climate-change legal expert at Columbia University, described the Chamber’s motion as “the latest example of businesses and conservatives weaponizing the 1st Amendment.”
The Chamber’s appeal is not the first challenge to climate change disclosure rules. Under the Biden administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted similar rules, which were later blocked by a lower court ruling. The Chamber of Commerce sued and won, and the SEC has since retreated from defending the rules. The companies have also tried and failed to persuade judges in California to block the measures, with US District Judge Otis Wright II in Los Angeles refusing to block the laws on the grounds that they “regulate commercial speech,” which gets less protection under the 1st Amendment.
Implications and Next Steps
The Supreme Court is likely to ask for a response from California’s state attorneys before acting on the appeal. State attorneys for Iowa and 24 other Republican-leaning states have joined in support of the Chamber’s appeal, stating that they “strongly oppose this radical green speech mandate that California seeks to impose on companies.” The outcome of this case could have significant implications for climate change policy and corporate disclosure requirements. As the case moves forward, it will be important to consider the potential impacts on businesses, the environment, and the role of government in regulating corporate speech.
For more information on this developing story, visit Here
Image Source: www.latimes.com
