1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Ninth Circuit Decision Clears the Way for California Employers to Require Arbitration Agreements

Ninth Circuit Decision Clears the Way for California Employers to Require Arbitration Agreements

Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.24.23

On February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit held that AB 51 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and consequently California employers are free to require employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. See Chamber of Com. of the United States of Am. v. Bonta, No. 20-15291, 2023 WL 2013326 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2023). AB 51 made it a criminal offense for an employer to do so, whether for applicants or existing employees.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the California legislature purposely crafted AB 51 to circumvent the preemptive power of the FAA by criminalizing only arbitration contract formation, while still allowing an arbitration agreement executed in violation of the law to be enforceable. Despite AB 51’s creative construction, the Court found that “the FAA preempts a state rule that discriminates against the formation of an arbitration agreement, even if that agreement is ultimately enforceable.” Bonta, 2023 WL 2013326 at *2.

The path to this decision was by no means a direct one. AB 51 was introduced by the California Assembly in December 2018, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2019, and was set to take effect on January 1, 2020. However, the Eastern District of California prevented state officials from enforcing the law, first by issuing a temporary restraining order on December 29, 2019, and then a preliminary injunction on February 7, 2020.  See Chamber of Com. of the United States of Am. v. Becerra, 438 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1085 (E.D. Cal. 2020). The Ninth Circuit initially reversed that decision in part and vacated the injunction on September 15, 2021, but in August 2022 a majority of the Ninth Circuit panel judges voted sua sponte to rehear the case, after which they withdrew the 2021 decision. See Chamber of Com. of the United States of Am. v. Bonta, 45 F.4th 1113 (9th Cir. 2022). This most recent decision followed, reversing course and affirming the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction against AB 51 because it found the Chamber of Commerce is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.

In light of this ruling, California employers should review their arbitration agreement policies and standard employment agreements. In circumstances where the FAA would apply to such agreements, employers should reconsider whether it would be beneficial to require either applicants or current employees to enter in an agreement to arbitrate.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights