Ninth Circuit Keeps SB 399 Injunction, Backing Grower Speech

A federal appeals court has upheld an injunction against California's SB 399, preserving agricultural employers' ability to hold mandatory staff meetings on political topics — at least for now.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday in favor of Western Growers, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Restaurant Association, affirming a September 2025 injunction against the union-backed law. SB 399 prohibited employers from punishing workers who refused to attend meetings on political or religious issues.

The legislation traces back to an incident in which an oil company docked workers a day's pay for skipping a meeting with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to a legislative bill analysis.

What does the ruling actually change?

The three-judge panel found SB 399 "singles out political and religious speech for regulation" and lets the state act as a "censor." Writing for the panel, Judge Richard C. Tallman noted Western Growers itself could face enforcement because it holds "all-hands" meetings where agricultural members discuss political issues.

"The law inevitably singles out employers based on their expressive activity," Tallman wrote.

In a separate decision, the same panel allowed the California Policy Center to join the suit as an opponent of the law, reversing a June 2025 dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on standing grounds.

For growers, the practical effect is straightforward: mandatory meetings on legislation, water policy, labor rules and other political questions can continue while the injunction holds.

Who said what

"The Ninth Circuit got it right," Western Growers leaders said in a statement. "SB 399 violates an employer's First Amendment rights to free speech by dictating what kinds of meetings can, and cannot, be considered mandatory for employees to attend."

The group argued the ruling confirms the state cannot silence a business owner simply because the speech differs from the political views of elected officials or outside interest groups.

Jason Resnick, senior vice president and general counsel of Western Growers, tempered the win with a caveat about next steps. "We don't know whether the state will seek further review," he said, while calling the unanimous decision and Tallman's opinion evidence that the First Amendment challenge "is likely to succeed."

"We believe spending more taxpayer dollars defending this unconstitutional law would be a waste of public resources," Resnick told Agri-Pulse in an email.

A spokesperson for state Attorney General Rob Bonta said the state is "reviewing the ruling." In defending SB 399, state lawyers had argued the law regulated employer conduct, not speech, and aimed to stop workers from becoming a "captive audience."

Jeffrey M. Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, which represents CPC, framed the standing ruling in broad terms: "California cannot threaten an organization with enforcement of a speech-restricting law and then argue that the organization has no right to challenge it."

The CPC case now returns to the district court for a fresh constitutional challenge.

Where the law came from

Then-state Sen. Aisha Wahab, a Democrat, introduced the bill in 2023. It passed the Legislature overwhelmingly, and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it in 2024. Wahab, now a member of Congress, argued that "at will" employment gives employers enormous power to pressure workers, and that mandatory political or religious meetings often bar workers from leaving or objecting.

An employer coalition countered that the bill's broad language effectively banned any workplace discussion of political matters and duplicated existing state and federal protections against coercion over political beliefs.

The caveat employers should not skip

Thursday's win does not hand California employers an unrestricted right to compel attendance at any meeting. Attorney Tashayla "Shay" Billington, writing on the CDF Labor Law blog, explains the panel applied "strict scrutiny" — the standard that makes content-based speech restrictions presumptively unconstitutional — because SB 399 targeted both the content (political or religious topics) and the speaker (the employer).

But a 2024 National Labor Relations Board decision held that mandatory employer meetings on unionization generally violate the National Labor Relations Act, Billington cautioned. That decision remains board precedent unless overturned or modified.

Her advice to employers: keep unionization meetings voluntary while the federal legal landscape stays unsettled. Growers holding mandatory political briefings should also note the injunction is preliminary, the state may appeal, and the underlying case has yet to run its course.