California has sued the Trump administration over the Santa Barbara pipeline restart, asking a federal judge to void an Energy Department order that used the Defense Production Act to force oil back through a corroded line that state courts and regulators had blocked. Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the case on March 31, 2026, in the Central District of California, arguing the order is arbitrary, exceeds statutory authority, and tramples on state sovereignty and a 2020 federal consent decree.1California Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Files Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
The Federal Order That Triggered the Suit
On March 13, 2026, Energy Secretary Chris Wright issued a “Pipeline Capacity Prioritization and Allocation Order” under the Defense Production Act, commanding Sable Offshore Corp. to immediately resume oil flow through the Santa Ynez Pipeline System off the Santa Barbara coast. Wright pointed to rising fuel prices tied to the Iran conflict and the need to supply West Coast military installations. The White House issued an executive order the same day expanding the Energy Secretary’s authority under the DPA.2CalMatters. Trump Emergency Sable Santa Barbara
Ten days earlier, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel had cleared the way with a legal opinion concluding that a DPA order could preempt California law and override the 2020 consent decree that required state fire marshal approval before any restart. The OLC called the DPA the “Nation’s necessity defense to state law” and argued its necessity findings were likely immune from judicial review.3U.S. Department of Justice. Preemptive Effect of Defense Production Act Order on State Law
On April 20, 2026, the administration went further, invoking Section 303 of the DPA to designate gathering and transmission pipelines, storage, marine terminals, and oil exploration and production as resources “essential to the national defense.”4White House. Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act
Sable restarted oil flow on March 16, 2026, in direct defiance of an existing state court injunction.5Center for Biological Diversity. Judge Finds Sable in Noncompliance With Preliminary Injunction Blocking Santa Barbara Oil Pipeline Restart
What California Is Asking the Court to Do
The state’s complaint names the Department of Energy and Secretary Wright as defendants. It alleges the DPA order is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the statute’s grant of authority, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, and infringes on California’s sovereign powers under the Tenth Amendment. The complaint also argues the order cannot lawfully supersede the 2020 federal consent decree or the state court injunction already in place against Sable.1California Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Files Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
The case was assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson. California filed a motion for preliminary injunction on May 1, 2026, with the hearing scheduled for June 1, 2026.6California Attorney General. California Preliminary Injunction Motion, State of California v. Wright
Governor Gavin Newsom’s office has framed the restart as opportunism dressed up as national security, noting that the pipeline would contribute roughly 0.05% of global oil production.7Governor of California. Governor Newsom Condemns Trump for Exploiting Iran War Crisis
Why the Pipeline Was Shut Down
The Santa Ynez system had been idle since May 19, 2015, when a corroded pipeline owned by Plains All American Pipeline ruptured near Refugio State Beach. Roughly 142,800 gallons of heavy crude poured out, with an estimated 598 barrels reaching the Pacific. Oil spread across 150 miles of coastline and killed hundreds of birds, sea lions, fish, and other wildlife.8San Luis Obispo Tribune. Plains All American Pipeline Convicted in Refugio Oil Spill
A 2020 civil settlement imposed a federal consent decree requiring the pipeline operator to obtain waivers from the California Office of the State Fire Marshal before restarting the two lines, designated CA-324 and CA-325.9Regulations.gov. PHMSA Special Permit Application, Sable Offshore Corp. That consent decree is one of the legal instruments California says the DPA order cannot override.
Houston-based Sable Offshore acquired the shuttered system from ExxonMobil in early 2024 and signed on to the existing consent decree.10State Impact Center. California Emergency Motion, Sable Pipeline A draft environmental analysis for Santa Barbara County estimated that reactivating the corroded line created a risk of a spill every year and a major rupture similar to the 2015 disaster every four years.11Santa Barbara Channelkeeper. Sable Pipeline
The State Court Injunction Sable Restarted Against
A Santa Barbara Superior Court judge granted a preliminary injunction on July 18, 2025, barring Sable from operating the pipeline without demonstrating it had all required regulatory approvals.12Circle of Blue. Restarting Ruptured Santa Barbara Oil Pipeline Tests California’s Regulators In February 2026, Judge Donna Geck ruled that the emerging federal intervention was not enough to override the injunction or the 2020 consent decree.13CalMatters. Santa Barbara Sable Pipeline Injunction
After Sable restarted anyway, Judge Geck ruled on April 17, 2026, that the company had violated the injunction. She held that the Department of Energy’s order “does not by itself permit violation of other federal law” and that Sable remained bound by the consent decree’s requirement to obtain state waivers before restarting. She scheduled a contempt hearing for May 22, 2026.14Courthouse News Service. Oil Company Violated Court Order by Restarting Santa Barbara Pipeline, Judge Finds
The Other Cases Running Alongside
Bonta’s suit against the Department of Energy is one track in a broader legal fight. Understanding the other tracks matters, because the courts are being asked to sort out overlapping questions on different timelines.
Environmental Groups vs. PHMSA in the Ninth Circuit
In late December 2025, the Center for Biological Diversity, Wishtoyo Foundation, the Environmental Defense Center, and partner groups petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration decision reclassifying Sable’s onshore pipelines as “interstate,” which shifted oversight from the State Fire Marshal to federal jurisdiction, along with an emergency special permit waiving certain federal safety rules. They alleged violations of the Pipeline Safety Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.15Santa Barbara Independent. Environmental Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Emergency Approval for Sable Pipeline Restart The Ninth Circuit denied their emergency stay request on December 31, 2025, but set the case for full briefing.16Pacific Coast Business Times. Fed Court Declines to Stay Sable’s Oil Production Restart Plans Oral argument is scheduled for July 7, 2026, in San Francisco.17CourtListener. State of California v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
California State Parks vs. Sable
On March 17, 2026, the Attorney General and the state parks agency sued Sable in Santa Barbara Superior Court, alleging the company was trespassing by running its pipeline through Gaviota State Park without a valid easement. The original easement had expired in 2016. The state demanded an end to oil flow and removal of the pipeline from the park.18E&E News. California Lawsuit Demands Oil Company Remove Pipeline From Park
Sable removed the case to federal court on March 19, citing federal officer jurisdiction. On May 28, 2026, Judge Wilson denied California’s motion for a preliminary injunction. He ruled the state had not shown irreparable harm because any trespass could be remedied through monetary damages and there was no evidence of imminent environmental risk.19Courthouse News Service. California Department of Parks and Recreation v. Sable Offshore Corp., Order State Parks said it would continue to challenge what it called an “egregious trespass on public land.”20Virginia Lawyers Weekly. District Court Denies California Parks Bid, Sable Offshore Pipeline
Sable’s Own Federal Suit
The same day the DPA order came down, Sable sued the director of California’s Department of Parks and Recreation in federal court. The company argued it was caught between a federal order to restart and a state agency refusing to renew its park easement without more environmental review. Sable is seeking a declaratory judgment that federal law and the DPA order preempt state regulation, and that the DPA’s liability shield bars trespass or breach-of-contract claims.21Courthouse News Service. Sable Offshore Corp. v. Quintero, Complaint As of mid-June 2026, the defendant had not filed a responsive pleading, and no motion hearing was scheduled before June 29, 2026.22CourtListener. Sable Offshore Corp. v. Quintero, Docket
The Legal Question at the Center
Courts have never squarely resolved whether the Defense Production Act can be used to override state environmental laws and force a private company to restart oil operations that state regulators and state judges have blocked.
The Trump administration argues that DPA orders carry the force of federal law under the Supremacy Clause, and that the statute’s liability shield preempts state regulation that conflicts with a presidential necessity finding.3U.S. Department of Justice. Preemptive Effect of Defense Production Act Order on State Law California counters that the DPA was never meant to displace state safety and environmental laws, and that the “national energy emergency” rationale is pretextual given the pipeline’s small share of global supply.7Governor of California. Governor Newsom Condemns Trump for Exploiting Iran War Crisis
Analysts have described the order as a significant escalation of how the DPA has been used. The Clinton administration invoked it during the 2000–01 California utility crisis, and the first Trump administration applied it to meatpacking plants in 2020, but those uses were narrow. Compelling a private company to restart a shuttered oil pipeline over the objections of state courts and regulators is new. Some scholars have pointed to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the 1952 Supreme Court case striking down President Truman’s seizure of steel mills during the Korean War, as a reminder that emergency economic authority has constitutional limits.23Baker Institute for Public Policy. The Defense Production Act’s Expanding Role in Energy
Where Things Stand
As of mid-2026, the pipeline dispute is unfolding in at least five courtrooms at once. Judge Wilson in the Central District of California is presiding over the cluster of related federal cases, all still in preliminary stages, including California’s suit against the Department of Energy.19Courthouse News Service. California Department of Parks and Recreation v. Sable Offshore Corp., Order The Ninth Circuit is preparing for July oral argument on whether PHMSA’s emergency reclassification and special permit were lawful.17CourtListener. State of California v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration In state court, Sable faces a potential contempt finding for restarting the pipeline in violation of Judge Geck’s injunction.14Courthouse News Service. Oil Company Violated Court Order by Restarting Santa Barbara Pipeline, Judge Finds
The pipeline route crosses four miles of Gaviota State Park, traverses multiple creeks that feed the ocean, and runs through habitat for four species that have been added to the federally endangered species list since the infrastructure was originally installed.24Santa Barbara Independent. State Parks to Sable Oil: Pick Up Your Pipeline and Walk The outcome of California’s suit will likely turn on whether a president’s declaration that oil production is essential to national defense can compel a state to stand aside while crude flows through a pipeline its own regulators say is unsafe to operate.