A federal appeals court has breathed new life into a lawsuit targeting California’s Senate Bill 399, a statute that limits mandatory workplace meetings on politics and religion. The three‑judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on Thursday, allowing the California Policy Center—a conservative‑leaning policy think tank—to pursue its constitutional challenge without waiting for a state citation.

Background on SB 399

Signed into law in September 2024, SB 399 bars businesses and other organizations from penalizing employees who refuse to attend company‑sponsored gatherings focused on political or religious topics. While the bill includes a few narrow carve‑outs for certain discussions, critics argue the language leaves employers vulnerable to state penalties for ordinary business conversations.

Why the California Policy Center is suing

The California Policy Center, represented jointly by the Liberty Justice Center and the California Justice Center, first filed suit in February 2025. The organization contends that the law directly impedes its core mission of analyzing state legislation, education policy, and public spending. Because its staff regularly convenes to dissect political developments, the think tank warned that mandatory all‑hands meetings could easily run afoul of the new restrictions.

Lower‑court dismissal and appellate reversal

U.S. District Court judges in Central California dismissed the case in June 2025, finding the nonprofit lacked standing to challenge the law before receiving a citation or investigation. The appellate panel disagreed, concluding that the California Policy Center faces a realistic threat of enforcement, especially since its regular staff discussions might fall outside the law’s narrow exceptions. The judges also noted that state officials, including California’s labor commissioner, have not pledged to leave the organization alone.

Quotes from the parties

“California cannot threaten an organization with enforcement of a speech‑restricting law and then argue that the organization has no right to challenge it,” said Jeffrey M. Schwab, senior counsel and litigation director at the Liberty Justice Center. “The Ninth Circuit correctly recognized that the California Policy Center does not have to wait to be punished before defending its First Amendment rights. Now we can return to court and challenge the constitutionality of this law.”

Will Swaim, chief executive of the California Policy Center, added, “SB 399 was never about protecting workers. It was about turning the workplace into a government‑controlled speech zone. Governor Gavin Newsom and his union allies may think they can dictate what employers are allowed to say, but the First Amendment says otherwise. This is a great decision, and we look forward to our day in court.”

What comes next?

The case now heads back to the federal district court, where the think tank plans to seek an injunction that would permanently block California from enforcing SB 399. If successful, the ruling could set a precedent for other states considering similar workplace speech restrictions.

Implications for employers and employees

Employers across California—and potentially in other states watching the legal battle—should be aware that the appellate decision reaffirms the right to discuss political and religious matters internally, provided they do not coerce participation. Employees who value the ability to engage in open dialogue about public policy may see this as a victory for free speech in the workplace.

Legal experts note that the case underscores the tension between state‑level attempts to regulate workplace discourse and the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment. While the Trump administration has consistently defended free‑speech rights, this lawsuit highlights how state legislatures continue to test those boundaries.

Community response

Local business groups and chambers of commerce have expressed support for the challenge, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a climate where ideas can be exchanged without fear of government retaliation. At the same time, some labor advocates argue that the law was intended to protect workers from being forced into politically charged meetings that could create a hostile environment.

As the litigation proceeds, both sides are likely to intensify their public messaging, framing the debate as a broader struggle over constitutional liberty versus governmental overreach.

Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.