Gig workers and unions sue in CA Supreme Court to have Prop 22 overturned, alleging it violates the state constitution and limits the power of legislators
Context & Ripple Effects
This suit is labor's counterpunch in a fight that started when Uber and Postmates sued to block AB5 on constitutional grounds rather than comply with the gig-classification law. Having lost the legislative battle, unions took Prop 22 to the ballot — and having won there, they now argue the initiative itself is unconstitutional because it fences off workplace standards from the Legislature.
The venue matters: the California Supreme Court decides whether a voter-approved measure can permanently strip legislators of power over labor rules, a question no lower-court skirmish settles.
First-order effects
- Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates face the risk that the classification-and-benefits carve-out they funded Prop 22 to secure is voided, reopening their driver-cost structure in their largest US market.
Second-order effects
- The outcome ripples into the union-organizing playbook beyond California: Prop 22 became the template gig companies pushed in other states' negotiations, so a court reversal would undercut the leverage platform operators bring to those talks.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds — companies writing labor law by initiative, workers challenging it in court — state constitutions become the battleground where gig-work classification is actually decided, with legislatures reduced to litigants in their own policy domain.
The trend: Gig-work classification is being settled not by legislation or ballots alone but by successive constitutional challenges, making courts the decisive arena between platforms and organized labor.