US Appeals Court Keeps California's Employer Political-Meeting Restrictions Blocked

A US federal appeals court on 29 October 2026 upheld a preliminary injunction that prevents California from enforcing a state law designed to protect workers who decline employer meetings about politics, religion and union-related issues. The ruling leaves an important worker-protection measure on hold while the underlying constitutional challenge continues.

In California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, case No. 25-6874, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's preliminary order against Senate Bill 399. The law, codified in California Labor Code section 1137, restricts employers from disciplining, threatening or otherwise penalizing employees for refusing to attend specified employer-sponsored meetings or receive communications conveying the employer's opinions about political or religious matters. The statutory definition of political matters includes labor organizations.

The court focused on the law's dependence on the content and speaker of a communication. An employer's decision to discipline an employee would trigger the statute only if the meeting involved the employer's views on specified subjects. The panel therefore concluded that the restriction implicated the First Amendment and faced strict scrutiny, a demanding constitutional test. It found that the business groups challenging the law were likely to succeed on that claim.

California had argued that employees are effectively a captive audience when workplace power imbalances make it difficult to refuse a meeting. The judges acknowledged the tension between an employer's speech rights and employees' interest in avoiding unwanted communications, but said the precedents cited by the state did not justify this content-based restriction on speech in a private workplace.

The result is narrower than a final judgment that all protections against compulsory meetings are unlawful. The appeals court affirmed preliminary relief, which depends in part on the challengers' likelihood of success; it did not finally resolve the case. Nor did the panel decide the separate argument that federal labor law pre-empts California's measure. Further proceedings, and potentially additional appellate review, remain possible.

The lawsuit was brought by the California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurant Association and Western Growers Association against state officials. Employers and workers are affected differently: the ruling preserves employers' ability to communicate their views without enforcement of this particular state restriction, while employees cannot rely on SB 399's blocked enforcement provisions for the protection it was intended to provide. Other applicable labor and anti-retaliation rules are separate questions.

The decision also has implications beyond California because other states have adopted restrictions on mandatory employer meetings. But the panel ruled on California's statute, not every state law; any broader effect will depend on the wording of those laws and future litigation. The published opinion, rather than competing descriptions of the ruling, is the controlling record for the panel's reasoning and its preliminary scope.