In what appears to be a new application of California’s historic — yet often criticized — environmental law, a union representing the state’s legal staff is calling for the statute to challenge Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2025 return-to-office mandate.
The union argued that the state’s four-day-a-week office order was not properly reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA. letter sent this week To more than 104 state agencies and departments. Thousands of state employees have been working from home since the COVID-19 pandemic, but the order to return to the office is now set to take effect from July 1, according to union officials.
In the letter from CASE, a labor group that represents attorneys, administrative law judges and hearing officers employed by state agencies, argued that the mandate “would result in significant environmental impacts” and promised legal action if the state does not conduct such an environmental review.
“Clearly, the state’s blanket order that more than 90,000 workers come into offices four days a week will impact California’s environment,” Richard Drury, an attorney representing CASE, said in a statement. “But no environmental impact report exists for this project. We are asking the state to complete that report as required by its own laws before moving forward.”
The letter argues that a four-day return to the office “would require hundreds of thousands of additional monthly trips by state employees, lead to hundreds of thousands of new car trips and thousands of tons of additional air pollution from automobile tailpipes.”
The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
CEQA, adopted in 1970, has been credited with protecting California’s natural resources and reducing pollutants, but it has also increasingly come under criticism for its broad application, sometimes weaponized by opponents of any project, even environmentally friendly ones, such as bike lanes, or required housing.
UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf said he wasn’t surprised to see union lawyers trying to enforce CEQA on personnel policies, but he found it new.
And looking at the law regarding CEQA, he said the union has “a very plausible argument.” But he also said it again shows how CEQA’s “omnibus rule that always favors the status quo … is not very practical,” said Elmendorf, who tracks environmental legislation affecting housing. He has become a proponent of CEQA reform.
“It will continue to be used strategically by people who don’t like a particular decision to throw sand in the gear and take advantage,” Elmendorf said.
He said he’s not sure how the case might be handled, but he could see the legislature once again taking steps to limit this interpretation of CEQA, as they have done frequently in recent years to expedite projects.
