Elon Musk’s free speech is allegedly being violated by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), according to a complaint filed by SpaceX against the state of California. The lawsuit alleges that when the California Coastal Commission (CCC), which regulates coastal development, rejected SpaceX’s request to launch more rockets from Santa Barbara County’s Vandenberg Space Force Base, it participated in political discrimination. Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX and self-described “free speech absolutist,” claims that the CCC’s ruling was biased against his political beliefs.
The lawsuit states that the CCC was “egregiously and unlawfully overreaching its authority” when it voted six to four against SpaceX’s request to increase its annual rocket launches at the military facility. The commission rejected the proposal on the grounds that the Space Force, which manages the base, did not provide a strong enough justification for allowing SpaceX to use its facilities.
During the deliberations, some commissioners openly criticized Musk, referencing his political statements and behavior. Commissioner Gretchen Newsom reportedly commented, “Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods,” highlighting a concern with Musk’s rhetoric and its potential impact on public perception. Although these remarks were not directly related to SpaceX’s operations, they became a key point in the lawsuit.
SpaceX contends that Musk’s strong political views were the reason behind the CCC’s rejection of the proposal, which the company says violates Musk’s constitutional rights to free expression and due process. The lawsuit highlights how it is an abuse of regulatory authority to single out a business due to the political views of its CEO.
The current legal dispute centers on SpaceX’s ability to prove that the CCC made a biased conclusion. SpaceX’s lawyers want to show that the regulatory board violated the law and went beyond its authority when it made a decision against the firm due to political differences. The limits of corporate personhood and corporation free speech protections will be put to the test in this case.