California’s Senate Bill 261 wasn’t just another climate law — it was the most ambitious, viable piece of climate legislation to be found anywhere in the country. The bill, which was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2023 but put on pause by a United States federal court earlier this month, mandated that companies disclose detailed information about their climate-related risks, increasing transparency and accountability in corporate environmental impact.
If large companies wanted to operate in the state of California, they’d be required to speak clearly and publicly about their exposure to climate risks. No other state cut as close to the core issue. Not even the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently stalled climate disclosure rule. Full-stop. But on December 1, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily halted the enforcement of the law pending appeal. Why? Free speech.
As a corporate climate and ESG consultant, I care deeply about this law. It aimed to push organizations to confront their true environmental footprint and integrate climate accountability into their core strategies, which is essential for meaningful progress. Standing in conflict with my own conviction, the majority judicial opinion halting Senate Bill 261 (SB 261) argued that government-mandated disclosure, at its core, constitutes a form of compelled speech.
This compelled speech argument isn’t a new idea. Corporations are people under the law, so they too have free speech rights. Regardless of one’s thoughts about the notion that corporations can be people — believe me, I have many thoughts there — it’s unavoidable that our country is rooted deeply in a culture fearing an all-too-powerful government. To that end, the same values that prompt us to protect freedom of the press are the same values that underpin our business-friendly culture.
The idea that forcing companies to talk about climate risks violates free speech felt, frankly, like a loophole exploited by powerful interests unwilling to own up to their impacts. I hoped the wide-reaching benefits of SB 261 would compel its legal legitimacy. After all, what’s at stake is nothing less than worsening climate disasters such as rising sea levels, deadly heatwaves, wildfires, and costly disruptions to our economy and communities if urgent action from major companies continues to be delayed or obscured. SB 261’s accountability measures would have accelerated climate progress by empowering investors to direct capital toward companies prepared for the transition to a low-carbon economy, increasing competitive pressure for genuine action, and effectively raising the bar nationwide, since companies often standardize their practices across jurisdictions.
But as Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently reminded us, cases before federal judges reflect deep disagreement among really smart people who are doing their best to interpret the U.S. Constitution. That’s why I went back to the Bill of Rights, studying the First Amendment and reflecting on how on this green and blue Earth it could be interpreted in a way that hobbles climate progress. As the legal debates and court opinions forced this closer look, even I have to admit: The free speech concerns raised here are real and should not be flippantly dismissed.
Consider that the First Amendment was written to protect not just popular or obvious speech, but to shield individuals (and yes, corporations, as legal entities made up of people) from compelled ideological statements by the government. In general, the Bill of Rights aims to protect individual liberty, even if that sometimes means sacrificing actions that may not be better for society as a whole. So, the judges who ruled against SB 261 didn’t prioritize corporate overreach insomuch as they prioritized restraining government overreach in line with a long American tradition of limiting the state’s power to dictate narratives, even for a good cause. Repeat: Even for good cause.
That’s a bitter pill for climate professionals like myself. Compelled speech in the context of climate disclosure never felt like the same thing as forced ideology. Yet, now I see how easily the tools we support for climate action could be abused in other hands. Free speech really is critical, and worth protecting. Even if that sometimes means a tool we badly need gets taken off the table.
So, what next? The answer is not to despair, but to adapt. The future of climate progress won’t be won through disclosure mandates alone. Instead, we need to invest in direct regulation of emissions such as cap-and-trade programs, clean energy standards and stricter pollution controls. State and local governments can set net-zero targets, invest in distributed energy and fund clean transit. The voluntary standards that many companies already follow — driven by global investors and consumer expectations — are more important than ever, and can be strengthened by collaboration and transparency within the private sector. Incentive structures, market-based solutions and public-private partnerships can move the ball forward without crossing constitutional lines
As we regroup and rethink climate strategy, we should carry two lessons forward. First, the fight for robust climate action is far from over. Creative, aggressive tools are still at our disposal. Second, defending free speech remains a cornerstone of a just society, and it’s worth preserving even when it means losing a critical policy battle. As hard as that feels, it’s a principle we abandon at our peril.
Feature image credit: Radomianin/Wikimedia Commons
Leave a Reply