California's Climate Disclosure Laws Are Splitting in Two: One Moves Forward, One Stays Frozen

California passed SB 253 and SB 261 together as a single climate accountability package in 2023. Nearly three years later, ongoing litigation has pulled them onto two different tracks, and treating them as a single compliance question is now a mistake.

Same package, different fates

SB 253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, requires companies with more than $1 billion in revenue doing business in California to publicly disclose their Scope 1, 2, and eventually Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, following the GHG Protocol. SB 261, the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act, requires a separate set of large companies to disclose climate-related financial risks aligned with TCFD or an equivalent framework.

Both laws faced a joint legal challenge from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, arguing the requirements are unconstitutional. But when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on an injunction request in November 2025, it treated the two laws differently: SB 261 enforcement was paused pending appeal, while SB 253 was not. That single procedural decision has defined the compliance landscape ever since.

SB 253: Moving forward, with a pushed-back date

SB 253 remains fully enforceable. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) unanimously approved implementing regulations on February 26, 2026, and the practical compliance picture has firmed up considerably since. The initial reporting deadline for Scope 1 and 2 emissions, originally targeted for June 30, 2026, has been pushed to August 10, 2026.

Companies within scope, U.S.-organized entities with more than $1 billion in revenue conducting business in California, should treat this date as real. It isn't tied to the pending litigation the way SB 261's timeline is, and CARB has moved past guidance documents into a formal rulemaking process covering fees and applicability definitions. Reporting entities should also expect fees once assessments begin later in 2026.

SB 261: Technically paused, practically still moving

SB 261's picture is more complicated. The Ninth Circuit's injunction means CARB isn't currently enforcing the law's original January 1, 2026 deadline for posting climate-related financial risk reports. Oral arguments on the underlying appeal took place on January 9, 2026, and as of the most recent updates, the stay remains in effect while the court deliberates.

But "not enforced" doesn't mean "inactive." CARB opened a public docket in December 2025 specifically for companies to submit links to their SB 261 reports, running through July 1, 2026, and companies have been voluntarily submitting reports despite the injunction, roughly 100 by late January 2026, many built on existing TCFD-aligned disclosures they already produce for other purposes. Should the Ninth Circuit lift the injunction, CARB has indicated it will announce a revised reporting date rather than reverting immediately to the original deadline.

Why the split matters for compliance planning

Companies preparing for both laws under a single unified timeline are working from an outdated picture. SB 253 has a hard, approaching date that doesn't hinge on court outcomes. SB 261 has genuine legal uncertainty that could resolve in either direction, toward full enforcement resuming on short notice, or toward the law being struck down or substantially narrowed.

The practical response most companies are landing on: continue preparing SB 261 disclosures as though the injunction could lift at any time, since the underlying data and analysis largely overlaps with work many companies are already doing for SB 253 or other climate reporting, while treating SB 253's August deadline as non-negotiable regardless of what happens with its sibling law.

The practical takeaway

Two laws passed together, marketed together, and covered together in most early compliance guidance have diverged into genuinely different risk profiles. Companies doing business in California above the relevant revenue thresholds need separate tracking, and separate urgency levels, for each.