Supreme Court urged to block California laws requiring companies to disclose climate impacts
WASHINGTON— The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups urged the Supreme Court on Friday to block new California laws that would require thousands of companies to disclose their emissions and impacts on climate change.
One of the laws is expected to come into force on January 1. urgent appeal asks the court to put it on hold temporarily.
His lawyers argue the measures violate the 1st Amendment because the government would force companies to talk about the topic of its choice.
“In less than eight weeks, California will force thousands of companies across the country to speak out on the highly controversial issue of climate change,” they said in a call that also spoke on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles County Federation of Businesses.
They say the two new laws will require companies to disclose the “climate-related risks” they foresee and how their operations and emissions contribute to climate change.
“Both laws are part of California’s overt campaign to force companies to engage publicly on climate issues and pressure them to change their behavior,” they said. According to its sponsors, their goal is to “let the public really know who is green and who is not.”
One law, SB 261 would require thousands of companies doing business in California to assess their “climate-related financial risk” and how they can reduce that risk. A. second measureSenate Bill 253, which applies to larger companies, requires companies to assess and disclose their emissions and how their operations may affect the climate.
The appeal argues that these laws amount to unconstitutional, coerced speech.
“No state may violate 1st Amendment rights to set climate policy for the Nation. Forced speech laws are presumptively unconstitutional—especially where, as here, they dictate a value-laden scenario on a controversial issue like climate change,” they argue.
The emergency objection was filed by Washington attorney Eugene Scalia, son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
The companies tried unsuccessfully to persuade judges in California to block the measures. Exxon Mobil filed a lawsuit in Sacramento and the Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles.
In August, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II in Los Angeles refused to obstruct laws on the grounds that they “regulate commercial speech,” which receives less protection under the 1st Amendment. He said businesses should routinely disclose financial data and factual information about their operations.
Lawyers for the business said they appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for a preliminary injunction, but no action was taken.
Shortly after the chamber’s appeal was filed, state attorneys from Iowa and 24 other Republican-leaning states joined in support. They said they “strongly oppose this radical green speech mandate that California is trying to impose on companies.”
The justices are expected to request a response from California state prosecutors next week before appealing.
