That is my understanding, that any term of a contract that violates the law is unenforceable. IANAL, but that’s the same thing as trying to use an NDA to prohibit the witness of a crime from reporting the crime or testifying. When it comes to illegal behavior, contracts are not binding.
What may allow this to squeak through is that, while the behavior the DA is seeking to compel is supported by the law, the judge may be saying that, hey, there’s a term in the contract that says the county has to at least ask first, then attempt arbitration, prior to compelling the behavior in court. That still seems wrong but I could see that interpretation. If so, this ruling isn’t stopping the prosecution forever, it’s just saying they have to try other venues first before bringing it to the court.
