I’m not sure how I feel about this case being adjudicated at the Supreme Court
Supreme Court Asked To Upend Pollution Rules
California’s sweeping new climate-disclosure mandates have triggered an escalating legal battle now arriving at the U.S. Supreme Court, with business groups asking to temporarily halt two state laws—Senate Bill 253 and Senate Bill 261—that require large companies operating in California to report their greenhouse-gas emissions and climate-related financial risks.
The emergency appeal argues that forcing companies to issue these disclosures violates the First Amendment, setting up a high-stakes dispute over the boundary between state transparency rules and protections against compelled speech.
California’s first-in-the-nation climate disclosure laws have triggered a high-stakes Supreme Court battle that could reshape the reach of state climate policy and the scope of corporate First Amendment rights.
At issue is whether companies can be required to publicly report their emissions and climate-related financial risks, or whether such mandates amount to unconstitutional compelled speech.
The outcome could determine how much climate information businesses must reveal to the public, whether states retain authority to demand transparency on environmental and financial risks, and how far corporations can go in using free-speech claims to block regulatory oversight—setting a precedent with sweeping implications for climate accountability nationwide.
I’m not really buying the 1st Amendment thing, this is really not about free speech or religion or anything else in there. Or in California’s version in their Constitution. But
Opponents argue these disclosures are not mere factual reporting requirements but compelled ideological speech.
The filing further characterizes the laws as part of “California’s open campaign to force companies into the public debate on climate issues and pressure them to alter their behavior.”
The Chamber and its partners assert that the mandates go beyond standard corporate reporting practices.
They argue that the laws require businesses to adopt California’s preferred framing of climate responsibility.
Still doesn’t seem like a free speech issue, but, it sure seems as if the PRC is requiring specific conduct from companies. But, let’s be honest, Government requires many things from companies. Hell, remember that government requires the use of Everify. Does that violate the free speech rights of hard left companies that support illegal aliens?
It should be interesting how this comes out. I gotta say, though, if the companies do not like the intrusive, waste of time cult rules they should leave the PRC in the same way I say fossil fuels companies should get out.
