
A federal appeals court issued a split decision finding two California laws requiring large corporations to disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks are partly unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit panel reviewed challenges brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against the state measures.
The panel evaluated the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act, known as SB 261, and the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, known as SB 253. While the court blocked enforcement of SB 261 completely, it allowed parts of SB 253 to move forward while halting others.
The court ruled that SB 261 violates First Amendment protections against compelled speech. Judges noted that the law required companies to make subjective predictive judgments about whether climate change poses financial risks to their operations rather than standard commercial speech.
Because the law mandates opinions on politically sensitive topics, it failed strict judicial scrutiny. The panel concluded the state failed to show the measure was narrowly tailored enough to meet its goals of mitigating information asymmetries for investors and reducing emissions.
Source: Courthouse News Service
Regarding SB 253, which targets corporations with over $1 billion in annual revenue operating in California, the court split its decision based on types of emissions. Requirements for reporting direct emissions and purchased energy emissions were upheld as commercial speech that advances state interests.
However, the panel blocked the requirement for reporting indirect emissions from a company’s broader value chain, including suppliers and customers. The court determined that diffuse third-party conduct is insufficiently linked to a company’s direct operations to qualify as commercial speech.
Businesses operating in the state face shifting compliance obligations under the appellate ruling. Companies subject to SB 253 must still prepare for reporting direct and energy-related emissions as parts of that law go into effect, while financial risk and value-chain reporting requirements face judicial roadblocks.
Business owners tracking state mandates should monitor ongoing legal updates to understand exact reporting obligations. Legal compliance steps may change as the state evaluates its next moves following the court’s decision.
Navigating evolving corporate reporting rules and constitutional challenges can present complex compliance hurdles for businesses. Consulting with a qualified legal professional may help companies understand how these appellate rulings impact their specific operations and regulatory duties.
The ruling changes the landscape of state environmental reporting by establishing firm First Amendment limits on compelled corporate speech.
Large corporations gain relief from broad financial risk assessments and value-chain disclosures, though direct emissions reporting remains required.
The decision signals that courts will closely scrutinize state attempts to force companies into making subjective political or predictive statements.
State authorities and business groups may pursue further legal maneuvers as California evaluates its next steps following the appellate ruling.
Affected businesses should consult legal counsel to determine which greenhouse gas reporting obligations remain active under the partial injunction.
| Law | Requirement | Court Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| SB 261 | Climate-related financial risk assessments | Unconstitutional / Blocked |
| SB 253 | Direct and purchased energy emissions | Upheld as commercial speech |
| SB 253 | Indirect value-chain emissions | Blocked by preliminary injunction |
Source: Courthouse News Service
This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published November 10, 2026.
Source: Courthouse News Service
A San Jose federal lawsuit alleges Jensen Huang’s undisclosed relationship with a suspected Chinese spy compromised Nvidia’s compliance statements, triggering a 5% stock drop.
The federal government is suing Lyft, seeking $53 million for passengers with disabilities who were allegedly denied service or charged unfair fees.
California joined bipartisan attorney general coalitions in amicus briefs to defend state gambling and sports gaming laws against prediction market operator Kalshi.
A California medical laboratory and its owner will pay $1.25 million to resolve allegations that they paid illegal commissions to marketers for test referrals.
A Superior Court judge found Kern County’s approval of the TerraVault carbon capture project violated CEQA, forcing a temporary shutdown and a new impact report.
Reading about the law is one thing, applying it to your own case is another. Browse verified attorneys in California by practice area.