Ninth Circuit Hears CPC’s First Amendment Challenge to SB 399

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in California Policy Center v. Garcia-Brower, CPC’s lawsuit challenging California Senate Bill 399, a law that violates employers’ First Amendment rights by prohibiting the discussion of “religious or political matters” during mandatory workplace meetings.

Jeffrey Schwab, Senior Counsel with Liberty Justice Center, presented the oral argument before the three-judge panel, asking the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s dismissal of the case and allow the constitutional challenge to proceed.

In its appeal, California Policy Center (CPC) argues that SB 399 imposes an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech by singling out discussions of political and religious matters while allowing employers to require meetings on virtually any other topic.

“SB 399 sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the government to punish California employers for their speech based on whether it approves of the content of that speech,” said California Policy Center CEO Will Swaim.

In September 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 399 into law. Although labeled the “California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act,” SB 399 does not actually address intimidation—rather, it bans California employers from communicating with their employees about political or religious matters during any mandatory meetings.

In February 2025, the Liberty Justice Center and California Justice Center filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of California Policy Center. After a U.S. District Court in Santa Ana dismissed the case for lack of standing in June, 2025, California Policy Center appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

In a separate lawsuit filed by the California Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. District Court ​in Sacramento issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of SB 399.

This week, the Ninth Circuit panel heard appeals in both cases, and suggested they may allow CPC to bolster its case for standing in an amended complaint. The judges’ questioning prompted Law360 to describe the panel as “icy” toward California’s captive meeting law.

During oral arguments, Ninth Circuit Judge Richard Tallman told California Deputy Attorney General Kristin Liska, who was defending SB 399, “It just seems to me you’re asking the Ninth Circuit to put its head on the proverbial chopping block … only to get slapped down by the Supreme Court.”

We encourage you to take the time to watch the oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit. At just under 40 minutes, it’s well worth your time, especially to hear the judges press the state’s attorney on the constitutional issues at the heart of the case. You can watch the oral arguments at the 38:25 mark here.