Environmental Defense Fund says California's climate disclosure laws are firmly consistent with the First Amendment

Where this statement fits

Ninth Circuit blocks California's climate-risk disclosure law and Scope 3 emissions reporting but lets direct-emissions reporting proceed; the U.S. Chamber calls it a First Amendment victory, and Bonta's office and EDF defend the laws

On November 9, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that two California climate disclosure requirements likely violate the First Amendment. The first is SB 261, which requires companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue to report every two years on their climate-related financial risks. The second is the part of SB 253 that requires companies with more than $1 billion in revenue to report emissions across their supply chains and customers, known as Scope 3. The panel reversed the district court's refusal to block those requirements while the suit goes on. The panel let California enforce SB 253's requirement that companies report the emissions from their own operations and from the energy they buy, known as Scope 1 and Scope 2. Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote for the majority. Judge Mark Bennett agreed on SB 261 and Scope 3 but would also have blocked the Scope 1 and Scope 2 reporting. The panel sent the case back to the district court to decide whether the Scope 3 provisions can be separated from the rest of SB 253. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which brought the suit with the American Farm Bureau Federation and California business groups, called the ruling an important victory and said it would seek a permanent injunction. Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said it was pleased that part of the emissions law can be enforced and was evaluating its next steps. Environmental Defense Fund, which filed a brief supporting the laws, said they are consistent with the First Amendment.