Issues limited in Prop. 22 case

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court granted review in Castellanos v. State of California, apparently to address various constitutional attacks on Proposition 22, the 2020 initiative — heavily financed by Uber and Lyft — that classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.

Today the court limited briefing and argument (see rule 8.516(a)(1)) to one constitutional issue: “Does Business and Professions Code section 7451, which was enacted by Proposition 22 (the ‘Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act’), conflict with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution and therefore require that Proposition 22, by its own terms, be deemed invalid in its entirety?” (Links added.)