It is unsettled whether the block on Scope 3 and SB 261 is already in effect. Foley's analysis says the district court must still enter a formal injunction, while Courthouse News and MLQ report the block as issued. Judge Mark Bennett dissented in part and would have blocked both laws entirely. The state Attorney General's office said it was pleased that SB 253 reporting will move forward. Further review is possible: the parties have 14 days to petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and one analysis notes a Supreme Court appeal is also possible.
The timing is immediate. The first SB 253 Scope 1 and 2 reports are due November 10, the day after the ruling, so companies must decide whether to file on schedule. SB 253 covers entities doing business in California with more than $1 billion in annual revenue, an estimated 1,971 companies, while SB 261 covers about 2,675. The panel's reasoning rests on compelled-speech doctrine, treating the required disclosures as subjective ideological assessments rather than commercial speech. Attorneys should watch the district court's order, any rehearing filings, and any high court petition. The outcome also matters beyond California, since New York and Illinois have introduced or are considering similar climate disclosure legislation.