Exxon Mobil has filed a 30-page federal lawsuit against California, arguing that two recent climate disclosure laws force corporate speech and violate the First Amendment. The complaint names senior officials at the California Air Resources Board and the state attorney general and zeroes in on Senate Bill 253 and SB 261, which take effect for many firms on Jan. 1, 2026. The case frames the laws as a constitutional fight over compelled expression and the reach of state regulators into corporate communications.
Exxon says the state’s new rules would make it publish climate-related financial risk reports on its website and follow the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures framework. SB 261, the complaint notes, targets companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue that do business in California and demands detailed reporting about worldwide climate risks. Exxon argues that this is not disclosure for consumers but a government-imposed script that companies must repeat online.
The lawsuit targets Lauren Sanchez, Steven Cliff, Matthew Botill, Sydney Vergis, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and it was filed in the Eastern District of California. Exxon emphasizes that the statutes would reach beyond California supply chains and force reporting on activities anywhere in the world, even when those products never enter the state. The company warns that the burden and the compelled messaging are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Exxon’s filing says the laws “compel ExxonMobil to trumpet California’s preferred message even though ExxonMobil believes the speech is misleading and misguided,” and it follows with a constitutional objection: “But the Constitution does not permit a State to use speech mandates to turn private parties into “instrument[s] for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” The complaint presses that coercion of corporate speech cannot be squared with free-speech protections.
The state argues these measures will protect California investors and consumers, create uniform information and nudge companies to reduce emissions. California frames the rules as transparency and protection for people who put money into the market or buy products in the state. Exxon counters that compelled public endorsements of the state’s preferred climate narrative exceed any legitimate regulatory interest.
The complaint lays out another sharp critique: “But under any level of scrutiny, no legitimate State interest justifies these speech mandates. The legislative history for SB 253 pays lip service to information California consumers, Senate Judiciary Committee, SB 253, but the statute’s reporting regime requires ExxonMobil to estimate and “recalculate” historical emissions under the GHG Protocal for any business activity, anywhere on the planet – including lithium production in Arkansas, jet-fuel production in Louisiana, and ceusw oil production in Guyana – regardless of whether an ounce of those products makes its wway to California consumers.” That passage is presented verbatim from the filing and underlines Exxon’s view of overreach and error in how the law would work.
The lawsuit also notes the scale: the law would require roughly 10,000 companies with annual revenue over $500 million to report on global climate risks, increasing compliance costs and exposure to political messaging. Exxon warns of ripple effects where firms must estimate and disclose emissions across far-flung operations to comply with California’s requirements. The company insists that forcing such disclosures converts private companies into mouthpieces for state policy, a step courts should block.
Exxon filed the case in federal court seeking relief from what it describes as compelled speech and an unlawful expansion of state authority over private communications. The company frames this as a principled defense of free speech rights for businesses, not a refusal to discuss climate matters on their own terms. The legal fight will test where disclosure mandates cross the line into compelled advocacy.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
