Plaintiffs challenged several provisions of Proposition 22, including § 7451, arguing that they were invalid and not severable. The trial court agreed, but the Court of Appeal reversed. 

On review, limiting the issue to the constitutionality of § 7451, the California Supreme Court affirmed. Relying on Independent Energy Producers Association v. McPherson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1020 and Mathews v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board (1972) 6 Cal.3d 719, it held that the Legislature’s plenary power over workers’ compensation is not exclusive and that the people can also legislate on such matters through the initiative process. The court declined to rule on whether § 7465, together with article II, § 10(c), conflict with article XIV, § 4, reserving that issue for a case directly challenging legislation providing workers’ compensation to app-based drivers. It rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that Assembly Bill No. 1766 presented such a challenge.

Full opinion

Plaintiffs (Postmates, Uber, and two individuals) alleged that A.B. 5 violates the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Contract Clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions. The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and later dismissed their claims.  The Ninth Circuit initially reversed the dismissal of the Equal Protection claims but then granted rehearing en banc and vacated that decision.

On rehearing, the court applied rational basis review, analyzing whether A.B. 5’s distinctions between different types of referral services are rationally related to the Legislature’s purpose. Citing Mountain Water Co. v. Mont. Dep’t of Pub. Serv. Regul. (9th Cir. 1990) 919 F.2d 593, 597, the court held that it could consider any rational purpose for the statute. After identifying several such reasons, the court held that A.B. 5 does not unconstitutionally “single out” Plaintiffs and that it provides a complex framework based on statutory criteria. The court declined to address Plaintiffs’ arguments about impermissible animus and political favoritism, citing Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Wasden (9th Cir. 2018) 878 F.3d 1184, 1200. It upheld the dismissal of the Equal Protection claims and affirmed the denial of injunctive relief.

Full opinion