A federal appeals court ruled that California's law banning employer-mandated attendance at meetings where employers discuss religious or political views likely violates the First Amendment. The decision came in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta from Judges Richard Tallman, Richard Paez, and Mark Bennett.
California Senate Bill 399 prohibits employers from punishing or threatening to punish employees who skip employer-sponsored meetings or communications designed to convey "the employer's opinion about religious or political matters."
The court rejected California's argument that the law targets conduct, not speech. The judges wrote that determining whether a violation occurred requires examining "the content of the message that is conveyed" at the meeting, making it functionally a speech regulation subject to First Amendment review.
The court found the law content-based, since it applies only when employers discuss certain topics: politics and religion. It also deemed the law speaker-based because it targets only employer speech. Content and speaker-based restrictions require narrow tailoring to a compelling interest.
California argued the law protects employees as a captive audience, similar to protections for transit riders and students. The court rejected this reasoning. It held that "captive audience" protections have applied only when government acts as a property owner or through content-neutral time, place, and manner rules. The court said no previous case had used captive audience theory to uphold content-based restrictions on private speech in nongovernmental settings.
The decision aligned with an Eleventh Circuit ruling that struck down Florida's Individual Freedom Act on similar First Amendment grounds.