Here:
Earlier this month, a Texas non-profit membership association filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District (Western Division) of California, Alliance For Fair Board Recruitment v. Weber, Case No. 2:21-cv-05644-RGK-RAO (July 12, 2021). Unlike an earlier court challenges, this lawsuit takes on both SB 826 and AB 979. ...
This new challenge differs from the others because it takes on both requirements and argues that both quota requirements are contrary to the "internal affairs doctrine". The plaintiff asserts:
California's race and gender quota laws expressly apply "to the exclusion" of the laws of the state of incorporation. Cal. Corp. Code §§ 2115.5(a), 2115.6(a). In other words, these board laws assert that they override other states' laws governing corporations incorporated in their own states. Therefore, California's "diversity" laws violate the internal affairs doctrine.
The plaintiff's complaint also differs in that it claims associational standing since it is brought on behalf of an association.
As regular readers know, I am agnostic on the equal protection claims against these statutes but am in full agreement with plaintiffs that, as drafted, they are unconstitutional under the internal affairs doctrine because they purport to apply the law of a state other than the state of incorporation to an internal affair of that corporation. See Internal Affairs, the California Board Gender Quota Law, and Chin v. CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd.
