Description: Lawsuit challenging two laws enacted by California that require companies to estimate and publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate change risks.
-
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. California Air Resources Board
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/27/2024 Motion to Dismiss Download Memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. 02/22/2024 Complaint Download Amended complaint filed. 01/30/2024 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Business Groups Challenged California’s 2023 Climate Disclosure Laws . The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Central District of California challenging two laws enacted by California in 2023: (1) Senate Bill 253, which requires certain companies to estimate and publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, and (2) Senate Bill 261, which requires certain companies to prepare reports on climate change risks. The plaintiffs characterized the laws as a plan “for compelling speech to combat climate change” and asserted that the laws violate the First Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and constitutional limitations on extraterritorial regulation, including the dormant Commerce Clause. With respect to the First Amendment, the plaintiffs alleged that the laws “compel companies to publicly express a speculative, noncommercial, controversial, and politically-charged message that they otherwise would not express.” Regarding the Supremacy Clause, the complaint alleged that the laws require “sweeping reports” about companies’ emissions and risks, resulting in pressure on companies both in and outside California to reduce their emissions. The plaintiffs asserted that under the Clean Air Act and federalism principles, California lacks authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions outside of its borders and that the disclosure laws therefore violate the Supremacy Clause. Regarding limits on extraterritorial regulation, the plaintiffs contended that the laws intrude on congressional authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and place burdens on interstate commerce that outweigh benefits to California.