- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States of America
- /
- Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility v. Coleman
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility v. Coleman
Geography
Year
2026
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2026
Status
Pending
Geography
Docket number
3:26-cv-00085
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (E.D. Ky.)
Case category
Constitutional Claims (US) → First Amendment (US)Constitutional Claims (US) → Fourteenth Amendment (US)Securities and Financial Regulation (US)
Principal law
United States → First AmendmentUnited States → Fourteenth Amendment—Due ProcessUnited States → State Law—Miscellaneous Statutes → Kentucky Consumer Protection Act → Kentucky Senate Bill 183 (AN ACT relating to the regulation of proxy advisory services) (SB 183)
At issue
Constitutional challenge to Kentucky law that imposed disclosure, notification, and economic analysis requirements on proxy advisors whose advice is inconsistent with board of director recommendations or is based on "nonpecuniary" concerns.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Each case in our database can contain one or more documents.
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
10/29/2026
Complaint filed.
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, United Church Funds, and Ceres, Inc. filed a facial constitutional challenge to Senate Bill 183 (SB 183). SB 183 is a Kentucky law that imposes requirements for disclosures, notifications, and economic analyses on “proxy advisors” whose advice is inconsistent with the recommendations of the board of directors of a company. In addition, SB 183 imposes disclosure and notification requirements on proxy advice that is based on “nonpecuniary” concerns, which “includes but is not limited to an environmental, social, political, or ideological interest which does not have a direct and material connection to the financial risk or financial return of an investment.” The plaintiffs, who described themselves as “nonprofit organizations that, as part of their missions, partner with institutional investors to engage with companies to seek strong long-term financial performance,” asserted that SB 183 violated the First Amendment because it impermissibly discriminates based on the viewpoint and content of speech and also because it compels speech. The complaint also asserted that SB 183 was void for vagueness due to its lack of guidance regarding its scope, including because questions left to the Attorney General’s discretion included whether a “reasonable investor” would consider environmental, social, and governance interests such as climate change “important” in determining the financial risk or return of an investment. The plaintiffs requested declaratory relief, an injunction barring enforcement of the law, and attorney fees and costs.
Complaint
Summary
Constitutional challenge to Kentucky law that imposed disclosure, notification, and economic analysis requirements on proxy advisors whose advice is inconsistent with board of director recommendations or is based on "nonpecuniary" concerns.
Topics mentioned most in this case
See how often Topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document.
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance