Back to blog
1 min readBy ACWI

Courts Reject CA Board Laws

Two California laws mandating female and minority representation on boards of directors for public companies have been struck down by two separate state courts. In 2018, California enacted a female representation mandate for corporate boards. Two years…

Two California laws mandating female and minority representation on boards of directors for public companies have been struck down by two separate state courts.

In 2018, California enacted a female representation mandate for corporate boards. Two years later, the legislature expanded that to require a specified number of board seats be allocated to members of statutorily specified underrepresented communities.

But later, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge declared the law regarding underrepresented communities unconstitutional and also enjoined the state from seeking to enforce it.

The court said the state couldn’t demonstrate the law’s racial and other classifications were narrowly tailored enough to address specific harms which the state had a compelling interest in addressing.

The law requiring specified numbers of females be on corporate boards was then overturned by a different Superior Court judge in a separate case.

The judge found that the state failed to show the law was narrowly tailored to address compelling state interests, noting that there is no compelling governmental interest in remedying generalized non-specific societal discrimination.

Both laws are now void and California-based public corporations are not obligated to comply with them. For Nasdaq issuers, however, beginning Aug. 8, an initial board matrix must be filed reflecting board diversity statistics using a Nasdaq template, notes attorney Jennifer B. Rubin of the Mintz law firm.

In addition to the Nasdaq initiative, other states such as Washington, Illinois and New York have passed legislation addressing corporate board representation, she points out.

Statutory initiatives may move the needle toward inclusiveness but should not be the primary drivers of boardroom diversification. Rubin believes. “The California experience demonstrates how legal challenges can derail important initiatives.”

Originally published June 15, 2022 · updated March 21, 2023.

Related reading

Browse all posts →
7 min

ACWI Spotlight: May 2026

HELLO MAY! Dear Members, We welcome May with a lot of global uncertainty — the tariffs that were imposed are now in the process of refunding, oil prices are at record highs, and the four-year transportation recession seems to be behind us. Manufacturing is coming back to America, Mexico just passed China as the #1 exporter to the U.S., and our team is positioning members to take advantage of both shifts…

5 min

ACWI Spotlight: April 2026

WELCOME SPRING! Dear Members, I know many of our members are welcoming Spring after a long hard winter. As you are reading this, I am attending the IWLA Conference in San Antonio, Texas. The IWLA is actually 20 years older than us and is the oldest Warehouse…

1 min

ACWI: Warehousing for Mid-Tier Companies

https://vimeo.com/1165350849?fl=pl&fe=sh Conversations at Manifest 2026: American Chain of Warehouses President Chris Kane was recently featured in a discussion with Russell W. Goodman , Contributing Editor at SupplyChainBrain, highlighting the evolving role…