Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. California Air Resources Board

Four weeks after denying a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining two California laws requiring climate change-related disclosures by certain companies, the federal district court for the Central District of California denied a motion by plaintiffs for an injunction pending appeal. The court found that the plaintiffs did not provide a basis for revisiting the court’s conclusions that the plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment challenges or its conclusion that they did not demonstrate irreparable harm.

The district court stayed all proceedings pending resolution of the plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction.

The Ninth Circuit granted a motion by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other appellants for an injunction pending appeal as to enforcement of California’s Senate Bill 261, which requires large companies doing business in California to make climate-related financial risk disclosures. The law required submission of a report by January 1, 2026. The Ninth Circuit denied the appellants’ motion as to enforcement of Senate Bill 253, which requires large companies to disclose certain information regarding their greenhouse gas emissions. After the Ninth Circuit granted the injunction, the appellants withdrew their application to the Supreme Court for an injunction pending appeal.

In an appeal from a district court order denying a preliminary injunction enjoining two California laws requiring climate change-related disclosures by certain large companies, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the portion of the appellants’ emergency motion requesting that the Ninth Circuit merits panel rule by November 3, 2025 on their pending motion for injunction pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit directed that the case immediately be assigned to a merits panel and placed the case, which has been fully briefed as of November 6, on the calendar for January 2026. The appellants’ motion argued that they faced “imminent and irreparable First Amendment harm because California Senate Bills 253 and 261 require covered companies to publish State-mandated reports as soon as January 1, 2026, compelling them to speak the State’s preferred views on climate change, and Plaintiffs’ members are currently incurring unrecoverable compliance costs.” They told the Ninth Circuit that a ruling by November 3 would permit “orderly Supreme Court review if necessary.”

After the Ninth Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal for SB 261, the appellants withdrew their application to the Supreme Court for an injunction pending appeal.

Iowa and 24 other states filed an amicus brief in support of the emergency application. They argued California was attempting to be a “national regulator” of greenhouse gas emissions and that companies across the country would be irreparably harmed if the laws were allowed to go into effect.