Teamsters move to defend California labor laws in key federal test

Two California labor laws at the heart of the state's effort to fill the federal enforcement gap are now facing major courtroom tests -- one before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the other in Sacramento -- as unions and business groups clash over how far the state can go to protect workers' rights when Washington stands down.

On Thursday, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters moved to intervene in the Trump administration's effort to block California's trigger law, which attempts to enforce federal labor protections. And on Wednesday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office appealed an order blocking the state's captive meeting law.

The two cases in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California -- with one now moving to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- will provide key tests of the state's efforts to fill the void left as the new administration steps back from enforcing some federal labor protections.

In the Teamsters' unopposed motion to intervene, Julie Gutman Dickinson wrote that her clients satisfied the four-part test to be allowed to step into the case to defend AB 288. The law, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed this year, would allow the California Public Employment Relations Board to step into labor disputes that would normally be governed by the National Labor Relations Board. The federal board quickly sued, arguing California was stepping into its arena of sole authority.

Gutman Dickinson, a partner with Bush Gottlieb in Glendale, argued the motion was timely, the union "has a significant protectable interest" that would be adversely affected if AB 288 is preempted, and "the current defendants do not adequately represent IBT because they represent a broader interest than the specific interests of the IBT and its members." National Labor Relations Board v. State of California, 2:25-cv-02979-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., filed Oct. 15, 2025).

For the law to stand, the Teamsters will need to show that the national board has effectively abandoned its own authority. The board has been without a quorum for most of the year. Many labor law experts say that despite the lack of a quorum, the board continues to operate, as shown by its quick filing of this lawsuit.

But a few said the board has effectively ceased to function. New York passed a similar law this year -- and got sued -- while Massachusetts lawmakers debated two such bills this year.

On Sept. 30, U.S. District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta enjoined most of the provisions of SB 399. This 2024 law bans employers from forcing employees to attend meetings where religion or politics are discussed -- or gatherings in which employers force workers to listen to anti-union messaging, especially on the eve of a union vote.

Calabretta found the law violates employers' First Amendment rights and is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. His ruling acknowledged some odd and troubling aspects of the administration's arguments, including that it appears to state that federal law already bars such meetings even as it declines to enforce those rules. But he wrote the act's "broad preemptive scope" gave him little choice. California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, 2:24-cv-03798-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal., filed Dec. 31, 2024).