On October 29, 2026, in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of California’s preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of California’s “captive audience” meeting law, which prohibits employers from conducting mandatory meetings about certain issues. In the past two decades, a dozen states have adopted similar laws to ban captive audience meetings, but California’s is the first to be enjoined by a federal appellate court.

Background

As we reported here, California’s Senate Bill (SB) 399, which took effect on January 1, 2025, bars employers from taking adverse action against or threatening any employee who refuses to attend a meeting or receive communications that convey “the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters.” The law broadly defines “political matters” to include an employer’s opinion on the decision to join or support a political or labor organization (i.e., union). The law imposes a $500 per employee, per violation civil penalty on employers and creates a private right of action for employees to sue for compensatory and punitive damages.

In 2024, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association, and the Western Growers Association filed suit in the Eastern District of California asserting that SB 399 violated the First Amendment and was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The District Court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on both claims and preliminarily enjoined the law.

The Decision

In defending SB 399, the California Attorney General’s office argued that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment and NLRA preemption claims. The Court disagreed.

The Ninth Circuit held that the law regulates employer speech, not conduct. Rejecting the state’s argument that SB 399 regulates only employer conduct (i.e., the ability to discipline employees), the Court explained that the only way to know whether an employer violated SB 399 is to look at what the employer said during the meeting. The Court held that the law must be analyzed under the strict scrutiny standard—the highest standard of review for constitutional challenges—because the law is “facially content-based” (i.e., it covers only communication about politics and religion) and “speaker-based” (i.e., it applies only to employers).

The Court also rejected the argument that the state is entitled to protect employees and therefore regulate employer speech and conduct in captive audience meetings, based on the employees’ economic dependence on employers. The Court explained that no federal appellate court has used that theory to justify a content-based restriction on private speech in a private setting.

Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit declined to reach the NLRA preemption question.

 Takeaway for Employers

The Bonta injunction is preliminary, meaning SB 399 cannot be enforced for the pendency of the challenge. While not final, Bonta presents a roadmap for employer challenges in other jurisdictions with state law captive audience bans which have largely been unsuccessful so far. While prior challenges to state captive audience laws in other circuits have focused largely on NLRA preemption, the Ninth Circuit instead relied on the First Amendment implications to enjoin SB 399. The focus on the impact of employer speech may spur successful similar challenges in other states.

The injunction of SB 399 does not alter federal law, and in the absence of a state law restricting captive audience meetings, the NLRA controls. Currently, under the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) Biden-era decision in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (2024), captive audience meetings for an employer to express its views on unionization remain unlawful. However, as we reported here, NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey recently issued a memorandum outlining her policy objectives, which include asking the Board to revisit the 2024 decision.

For now, employers should continue to approach captive audience meetings with caution by continuing to not require attendance and notifying employees in advance about the subject matter and the voluntariness of the meeting. However, GC Carey’s memorandum and the Bonta injunction may signal a future loosening of restrictions on captive audience meetings to the employer’s benefit.

We will continue to monitor these developments.