加州氣候揭露上訴裁定：Scope 3 與 SB 261 獲初步救濟，Scope 1、2 要求仍在

ESG Today 11 月 10 日報導加州企業氣候揭露法的訴訟進展。依第九巡迴上訴法院 11 月 9 日公布的第 25-5327 號意見，法院維持不對 SB 253 Scope 1、2 揭露發布初步禁制令的決定，並就 Scope 3 與 SB 261 撤銷原先拒絕救濟的裁定。不同排放範疇的法律狀態因此必須分開閱讀。

ESG Today reported litigation developments on November 10. The Ninth Circuit’s November 9 opinion in No 25-5327 affirms the denial of a preliminary injunction for SB 253 Scope 1 and 2 disclosures, while reversing the denial of relief for Scope 3 and SB 261. The reporting categories therefore have different procedural positions and should be described separately.

SB 253 涉及企業溫室氣體排放揭露，SB 261 則處理氣候相關財務風險揭露。訴訟當事人對強制揭露與美國憲法第一修正案的關係提出爭議。法院意見討論企業自身營運、價值鏈第三方行為及主觀風險評估等差異，不能把任何單一段落概括成所有氣候資料皆不得要求揭露。

SB 253 addresses greenhouse-gas reporting and SB 261 concerns climate-related financial risk. The litigation examines compelled disclosure under the First Amendment. The panel distinguishes information linked to a company’s own operations from value-chain conduct and certain risk assessments. That reasoning cannot be reduced to a conclusion that every climate-data request is prohibited.

企業最容易誤判的是把某些義務受到初步救濟，理解為整套資料蒐集已可停止。法院並未一體暫停 Scope 1、2 要求；對 Scope 3，還有發回地方法院處理可分割性的程序。企業也可能同時面對其他市場規則、集團盤查政策與客戶合約，不能只靠一則新聞決定全部作業。

A major operational risk is confusing preliminary relief on certain provisions with permission to stop all climate-data work. Scope 1 and 2 reporting was not enjoined by this opinion, and the Scope 3 severability question returns to the district court. Companies can also face separate contractual, group-reporting and overseas requirements that demand their own assessment.

判決意見將 Scope 1、2 的揭露與企業自身營運及資本交易連結，對 Scope 3 與 SB 261 採取不同的言論審查分析。接下來的程序須處理發回事項。對受影響企業，較可執行的做法是逐項辨識哪個資料請求來自哪條法律、哪期報告與哪個主體，並交由具資格法律顧問確認義務。

The panel applies different speech analyses to the reporting categories and remands the relevant severability issue. An affected company needs an obligation-by-obligation register connecting each request to its legal basis, covered entity and reporting period. Qualified counsel should assess applicability and the effect of subsequent orders, rather than treating a general news account as legal advice.

Farella Braun + Martel 律師事務所 11 月 10 日的獨立分析，亦指出裁定未影響 Scope 1、2 的 11 月 10 日提交期限。法院正式意見與該分析支持對救濟範圍的區分。本稿採用法院所載 11 月 9 日意見日期，不把新聞發布日期改寫為法院宣判日，也不將初步禁制令程序表示為整部法律終局失效。

Independent commentary published by Farella Braun + Martel on November 10 likewise says the opinion does not change the November 10 Scope 1 and 2 submission deadline. SNN uses the November 9 opinion date shown in the official record. The procedural decision is not presented as a final invalidation of the entire statutory framework.

SNN 的制度解讀是，法律義務暫時分流不等於排放資料本身失去商業用途。相同供應商資料，可能同時支援買方盤查、產品碳足跡與其他司法管轄區揭露。資料持有人需要可辨識請求權限與用途的版本管理，才不會在暫停某一用途時誤刪仍有必要保留的原始資料。

SNN interprets the ruling as a reason to improve authority and purpose controls around emissions information. A supplier record can serve a customer inventory, a product footprint or a different jurisdiction’s disclosure. Suspending one use should not automatically remove the underlying evidence needed for other continuing purposes.

SNN 編輯分析：揭露前證據基礎設施的重點，是把法院救濟範圍對應到每一筆資料請求的權限與用途。美國境外揭露制度的程序調整，可能透過加州客戶的供應商問卷及集團法遵指示，傳導為台灣電子供應商與碳盤查查證團隊的交付規格變動；不代表台灣法律義務隨之變更。台灣電子供應商應在回覆新版問卷前，要求買方採購團隊確認適用主體清冊、Scope 3 問卷版本及合約交付條款，分開標記法定與商務用途。台灣碳盤查查證團隊應在每次報告定稿前核對排放邊界清冊、活動數據憑證及係數版本，保存仍供 Scope 1、2 使用的查驗軌跡。台灣法遵團隊應在客戶通知變更或地方法院後續裁定時，更新第 25-5327 號意見與法律評估紀錄的關聯，再確認資料保存期限。以上為編輯分析與建議，不是對個別企業提供適用性結論。

SNN editorial analysis: Pre-Disclosure Evidence Infrastructure should connect the scope of judicial relief with the authority behind individual data requests. Changes in overseas disclosure procedures may transmit through California customer questionnaires and group compliance instructions into delivery requirements for Taiwan electronics suppliers and carbon assurance teams. This does not change Taiwan law by itself. Taiwan electronics suppliers should ask buyer procurement teams to confirm the covered-entity roster, Scope 3 questionnaire version and contractual delivery clauses before responding to a revised request. Taiwan carbon assurance teams should reconcile inventory-boundary records, activity-data receipts and emission-factor versions before each report is finalized, retaining the audit trail still supporting Scope 1 and 2. Taiwan compliance teams should update the relationship between the No 25-5327 opinion and their legal assessment record whenever a customer instruction or subsequent district-court order changes. These are editorial recommendations, not company-specific legal conclusions.

下一個實質觀察點是地方法院的後續處理，以及主管機關對執行方式的正式說明。企業應以最新有效法院命令與適用規範確認作業，而非假定上訴意見已解決所有爭議。任何資料流程調整都應留存決策日期、依據版本與負責核准的人員。

Further district-court decisions and formal implementation statements will be the next meaningful developments. Operational changes should follow the effective orders and applicable rules. Maintaining the decision date, authoritative version and approving person will make subsequent changes understandable without assuming the appeal resolved every outstanding issue.