News & Analysis as of

Constitutional Challenges First Amendment California

Franczek P.C.

Federal Appellate Court Finds that School Board President Violated First Amendment in Restricting Followers on Social Media

Franczek P.C. on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which governs federal districts in the West/Northwest, recently held that a California school board member violated the First Amendment when blocking users’ ability to access...more

Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP

U.S. Northern District of California Grants Limited Preliminary Injunction of DEI-Related Executive Orders

On June 9, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in San Francisco A.I.D.S. Foundation, et. al. v. Trump, 25-cv-01824-JST (N.D. Cal.), enjoining three of the nine...more

Cozen O'Connor

Update on California's Climate Disclosure Laws: What Companies Need to Know

Cozen O'Connor on

On May 29, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) held a virtual public workshop to discuss forthcoming regulations implementing California’s corporate climate disclosure laws. The workshop focused on the scope of...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Trial Court Strikes Down California’s Prop 65 Acrylamide Warning Requirements

A Federal District Court in California has ruled that Proposition 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide are unconstitutional. The California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) sued five years ago challenging the...more

DLA Piper

Federal Court Declares Proposition 65 Warnings for Acrylamide in Food Unconstitutional

DLA Piper on

The US District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 2, 2025 granted summary judgment in favor of the California Chamber of Commerce, holding that Proposition 65 warning requirements for acrylamide in food...more

Greenberg Glusker LLP

Court Finds Requiring Prop. 65 Warnings for Acrylamide in Food is Unconstitutional

Greenberg Glusker LLP on

On May 2, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a landmark ruling in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, Case No. 2:19-cv-02019, holding that Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”) warning...more

ArentFox Schiff

American Chemistry Council v. Bonta: A Decision in Support of Trade and Professional Associations’ First Amendment Rights

ArentFox Schiff on

Does the First Amendment protect associations’ communications with their members when petitioning government agencies?...more

King & Spalding

New Federal Court Decision Holds Proposition 65 Warnings Are Not Required Where There Was No Scientific Consensus on the...

King & Spalding on

In an important decision under California’s Proposition 65, a federal court recently ruled that businesses cannot be required to provide a product warning under Proposition 65 where there is no scientific consensus on whether...more

Greenberg Glusker LLP

Judicial Burn: Court Declares Proposition 65 Acrylamide Warning Unconstitutional

Greenberg Glusker LLP on

Acrylamide, a Proposition 65-listed substance that naturally forms in the cooking and heating of many plant-based foods, has been the focus of court action over the past six years. However, companies will no longer be...more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

District Court Issues Permanent Injunction Enjoining Enforcement of Prop 65 Warning Requirements for Dietary Acrylamide

On May 2, 2025, the Eastern District of California found that Prop 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide violate the First Amendment, and granted a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of those warnings....more

Downey Brand LLP

Court Overturns Prop 65 Acrylamide Warning

Downey Brand LLP on

On May 2, a federal district court in Sacramento permanently enjoined the Prop 65 warning for acrylamide in food, finding it to be unconstitutional. At issue in the case, California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. No....more

Allen Matkins

Ninth Circuit Upholds DFPI's Commercial Financing Disclosure Rules

Allen Matkins on

On September 30, 2018, California enacted SB 1235, codified at California Financial Codes sections 22800–22805. SB 1235 requires that an offer of commercial financing for $500,000 or less be accompanied by disclosures of: (1)...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

What Would John Wilkes Booth Do? Mandatory COVID Vaxes for Actors

Although the threat of COVID-19 (remember that?) seems to have diminished considerably over the past five years, once upon a time in Hollywood many production companies (along with other employers) required employees to be...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Social Media

California’s Assembly Bill 587 Loses Key Provisions After Legal Challenge from X

California’s attempt to impose content moderation transparency requirements on social media platforms has suffered a significant setback. Last month, the state reached a settlement with X Corp. (formerly Twitter), effectively...more

Fennemore

Nursing Impact Litigation – A Tale of Two Matters

Fennemore on

This article highlights legal disputes central to APRNs’ ability to practice independently, the use of professional titles, insurance discrimination, and broader healthcare competition dynamics. Around the country, Advanced...more

Latham & Watkins LLP

Legal Battle Over California’s Climate Disclosure Laws Continues as Plaintiffs File a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Latham & Watkins LLP on

Paramount to the ruling in the upcoming May 5, 2025, hearing is the likelihood that strict scrutiny will apply to the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims against SB 253 and SB 261....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Mandatory Captive Rules in Limbo for California Employers – 2 Federal Lawsuits Challenge SB 399 and Looming Issue Before the NLRB

As discussed in our recent article, the introduction of SB 399 in California (approved and added as California Labor Code section 1137) sparked significant discussion and concern among California employers with union...more

Latham & Watkins LLP

Court Dismisses Portions of Lawsuit Against California Climate Disclosure Laws

Latham & Watkins LLP on

Supremacy Clause and Dormant Commerce Clause claims against SB 253 and SB 261 were dismissed, while claims under the First Amendment proceed to discovery....more

ArentFox Schiff

California Law Seeking to Regulate Social Media Use by Minors Raises First Amendment Issues

ArentFox Schiff on

California recently enacted the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, sparking pushback from online entities who argue the law is an unconstitutional restriction on children’s First Amendment rights and a...more

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Ongoing Legal Battle Over California’s Climate-Related Disclosure Laws: District Court Dismisses Supremacy Clause and...

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

On February 3, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a partial motion to dismiss filed by the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), dismissing the claims that SB 253 (the Climate...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Court Order Hobbles Challenge to California’s Climate Disclosure Laws

Troutman Pepper Locke on

Companies following the ongoing legal challenge to California’s climate disclosure laws in hopes that the court would strike down or limit the scope of these laws will be disappointed by the order issued by the U.S. District...more

Mintz

California Climate Disclosure Laws Survive Significant Challenge

Mintz on

Judge Wright (C.D. Cal.) has significantly narrowed the Chamber of Commerce's lawsuit challenging California's climate disclosure laws. (These disclosure laws mandate disclosure of Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California’s Kids’ Social Media Law Wrangling Continues, and Maryland Too!

The Ninth Circuit continued the pause on California’s SB 976 (Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act) as of late January 2025. The law was signed by Governor Newsom in September 2024, and challenged by NetChoice...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

Business Groups’ Lawsuit Slams California Ban on “Captive Audience” Meetings

As we reported here, California’s Senate Bill (S.B.) 399, took effect on January 1, 2025. This law prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend meetings about the company’s opinions on political or religious...more

Weintraub Tobin

Lawsuit Filed by CA Chamber of Commerce: Challenging Senate Bill 399

Weintraub Tobin on

This is a follow-up to our recent blog post regarding Senate Bill 399 (“SB 399”) and its prohibition on an employer’s right to take adverse action against an employee who refuses to attend meetings related to “political...more

33 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide