Copyright nytimes
In court filings in the Chamber of Commerce lawsuit, Mr. Bonta’s office argued that the laws actually serve a core First Amendment goal by allowing well-informed financial decision-making. “Plaintiffs have yet to explain how the laws compel even a single company to state a political or ideological opinion,” Caitlan McLoon, a deputy attorney general, wrote in a brief last month. In that case, a few groups have filed amicus briefs with the appellate court on both sides of the fight. The Washington Legal Foundation, which supports free-enterprise principles, argued that the laws force businesses to parrot the state’s views. Ceres, a business network that supports a transition to cleaner energy, said the laws had broad support from corporations and investors. In the latest filing, on Friday, FarmSTAND, which opposes industrial animal agriculture, said the laws were important to counter meat and dairy companies engaging in what the group called greenwashing, or deceptive publicity about their environmental practices. At the end of the Biden administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission had been nearing implementation of new federal climate disclosure rules. Those rules were also challenged in court, and in March, shortly after the start of the current Trump administration, the commission voted to end its legal defense of the rules. The rules remain effectively shelved, but not repealed, according to Jayson O’Neill, senior director of climate finance for Focal Point Strategy Group, a communications firm that works with climate and good-governance groups. He noted that other states have also proposed their own climate disclosure laws. The European Union is also moving forward with new climate disclosure rules. In a letter this week to the E.U., Energy Secretary Chris Wright and his Qatari counterpart, Saad Sherida al-Kaabi, minister of state for energy affairs, raised concerns about the measure, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. They called on the E.U. to repeal the directive or remove provisions that they said would be economically damaging.
