Business Groups File Brief Opposing California’s “Captive Audience" Meeting Law

A business advocacy group has filed a brief with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opposing a California law that prohibits employers from discussing religious or political matters, including unionization, with employees.

California S.B. 399 was signed into law in September 2024 and took effect on Jan. 1, 2025. The law bans employers from requiring employees to attend meetings where the employer shares opinions on political or religious matters unrelated to employees’ job duties. The California Legislature passed the law over concerns that employees who decline to attend such meetings risk adverse employment action.

Many business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, have criticized the law, arguing that it infringes on the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of employers. Additionally, business groups say the regulation is preempted by federal law under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

In September 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California placed a preliminary injunction on the law while the case made its way through the court system. The court agreed that S.B. 399 targets the subject being discussed at the meetings and therefore is an improper content-based regulation of speech. Further, the court ruled that the NLRA does indeed preempt the state law, even if, as the court noted, the current National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) interpretation of the federal law also disallows such “captive audience” meetings. However, whether to regulate those meetings is a matter for the NLRB, not the state of California, the court said.

With the case now headed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, business groups are again weighing in on the law. In a new brief filed with the court, the groups contend that S.B. 399 discriminates based on both content and viewpoint. “By applying only to speech on religious and political matters, California allows mandatory meetings on topics the state favors and disallows mandatory meetings on topics it disfavors,” the brief states. “In other words, S.B. 399 draws distinctions based on the message an employer conveys.

“Moreover, S.B. 399 regulates only employer speech,” the brief continues. “Laws that target and apply only to particular speakers are viewpoint-discriminatory because they exclude an entire category of speakers and their viewpoints from debate on a topic. Silencing employers from commenting on unionization is obviously an effort to promote pro-union viewpoints and inhibit alternative views.”

The full brief is available here.