California is suing the Trump administration over the Santa Barbara pipeline restart because the federal government used the Defense Production Act to force oil back through a line that a state court, state regulators, and a 2020 federal consent decree had all kept shut since the 2015 Refugio spill. Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the suit on March 31, 2026, two weeks after Energy Secretary Chris Wright ordered the operator, Sable Offshore Corp., to resume flow immediately, and three days before Sable did so in open defiance of a standing state court injunction.
What California’s Lawsuit Argues
The state’s complaint, filed in the Central District of California and assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson, names the Department of Energy and Secretary Wright. It argues that the DPA order is arbitrary, exceeds the statute’s authority, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, infringes on California’s sovereign powers under the Tenth Amendment, and cannot lawfully supersede either the 2020 federal consent decree governing the pipeline or the state court injunction already blocking its restart.1California Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Files Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
Bonta filed a motion for preliminary injunction on May 1, 2026, with the hearing set for June 1, 2026.2California Attorney General. California Preliminary Injunction Motion, State of California v. Wright The state’s position is that the Defense Production Act was never meant to override state safety and environmental laws, that the invoked “national energy emergency” is pretextual, and that the pipeline would contribute roughly 0.05% of global oil production — a volume the state says cannot plausibly justify a national defense determination.3Governor of California. Governor Newsom Condemns Trump for Exploiting Iran War Crisis
The Federal Order California Is Challenging
On March 13, 2026, Secretary Wright issued a “Pipeline Capacity Prioritization and Allocation Order” under the Defense Production Act commanding Sable to immediately resume oil flow through the Santa Ynez Pipeline System. Wright cited rising fuel prices after the Iran conflict and the need for reliable energy at West Coast military installations. The White House issued an executive order the same day expanding the Energy Secretary’s DPA authority.4CalMatters. Trump Emergency Sable Santa Barbara On April 20, 2026, the administration invoked 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.”5White House. Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act
The legal theory behind the order came from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. In a March 3, 2026 opinion, OLC concluded that a DPA order could preempt California state law and override the 2020 consent decree’s requirement that the state fire marshal approve any restart. OLC characterized the Act as the “Nation’s necessity defense to state law” and argued that DPA necessity findings are likely immune from judicial review.6U.S. Department of Justice. Preemptive Effect of Defense Production Act Order on State Law The underlying authority traces to President Trump’s January 2025 declaration of a national energy emergency.7Center for Biological Diversity. Lawsuit Challenges Trump Moves to Restart California Coastal Oil Pipeline
Sable restarted the pipeline on March 16, 2026.8Center for Biological Diversity. Judge Finds Sable in Noncompliance With Preliminary Injunction Blocking Santa Barbara Oil Pipeline Restart
Why the Pipeline Was Shut Down
On May 19, 2015, a corroded pipeline owned by Plains All American Pipeline ruptured near Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County. Roughly 142,800 gallons of heavy crude spilled, with an estimated 598 barrels reaching the Pacific. The slick spread across 150 miles of coastline and killed hundreds of birds, sea lions, fish, and other wildlife.9San Luis Obispo Tribune. Plains All American Pipeline Convicted in Refugio Oil Spill
A civil settlement finalized in March 2020 required Plains to pay more than $60 million and imposed a federal consent decree requiring nationwide operational modifications. Critically for the current dispute, the decree required the pipeline operator to obtain waivers from the California Office of the State Fire Marshal before restarting the lines, designated CA-324 and CA-325.10U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Pipeline Company to Modify Its National Operations and Implement Safeguards Resulting From Oil Spill11Regulations.gov. PHMSA Special Permit Application, Sable Offshore Corp. The entire Santa Ynez Unit — three offshore platforms, the Las Flores Pipeline System, and a processing plant — sat idle for years.
In early 2024, Sable Offshore Corp., a Houston-based startup, acquired the system from ExxonMobil and signed an agreement to comply with the consent decree.12Circle of Blue. Restarting Ruptured Santa Barbara Oil Pipeline Tests California’s Regulators13State Impact Center. California Emergency Motion, Sable Pipeline A draft environmental analysis for Santa Barbara County estimated that reactivating the corroded pipeline carried a risk of a spill every year and a major rupture every four years.14Santa Barbara Channelkeeper. Sable Pipeline
What California Had Already Done to Block the Restart
By the time Secretary Wright issued the DPA order, Sable had been stopped at nearly every level of California government and in state court.
The California Coastal Commission fined Sable $18 million and issued three cease-and-desist orders for unpermitted development along the coastal zone.15Santa Barbara Independent. CA Attorney General Bonta Sues Sable Offshore Over Alleged Coastal Violations In September 2025, the Santa Barbara County District Attorney filed 21 criminal charges against the company — five felonies for knowingly discharging pollutants and 16 misdemeanors — tied to excavation work in 2024 and 2025.16Noozhawk. DA Files 21 Criminal Charges Against Sable for Oil Pipeline Work Bonta filed a separate civil lawsuit in October 2025 alleging 144 unauthorized excavations along the Gaviota Coast. In December 2025, Santa Barbara County supervisors voted to deny Sable’s request to transfer the local permits it needed to operate the system.17E&E News. California County Officials Deny Sable’s Offshore Pipeline Permits
The key constraint, though, was a Santa Barbara Superior Court injunction issued on July 18, 2025, barring the company 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 maintained the injunction, finding that the federal intervention to that point was insufficient to override it or the 2020 consent decree.18CalMatters. Santa Barbara Sable Pipeline Injunction After Sable restarted the line in March 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. A contempt hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2026.19Courthouse News Service. Oil Company Violated Court Order by Restarting Santa Barbara Pipeline, Judge Finds
The Other Lawsuits Running Alongside
Bonta’s suit against the Department of Energy is one of several cases playing out at the same time.
Environmental Groups vs. PHMSA
In late December 2025, the Center for Biological Diversity, Wishtoyo Foundation, the Environmental Defense Center, and partners petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn two earlier federal moves: PHMSA’s December 17, 2025 reclassification of Sable’s onshore pipelines as “interstate” (shifting oversight from the state fire marshal to federal jurisdiction) and the agency’s December 23, 2025 emergency special permit waiving certain federal safety regulations. The petitioners alleged violations of the Pipeline Safety Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.20Santa Barbara Independent. Environmental Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Emergency Approval for Sable Pipeline Restart7Center for Biological Diversity. Lawsuit Challenges Trump Moves to Restart California Coastal Oil Pipeline The Ninth Circuit denied an emergency stay on December 31, 2025, but set the case for full briefing, with oral argument scheduled for July 7, 2026, in San Francisco.21Pacific Coast Business Times. Fed Court Declines to Stay Sable’s Oil Production Restart Plans22CourtListener. State of California v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
California State Parks vs. Sable
On March 17, 2026, Bonta and the state parks agency sued Sable in Santa Barbara Superior Court, alleging that the company was trespassing on state property by running its pipeline through Gaviota State Park without a valid easement. The original easement had expired in 2016. The state asked for an end to oil flow and removal of the pipeline infrastructure from the park.23E&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 the state’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that California had failed to show irreparable harm because any trespass could be remedied through monetary damages and there was no evidence of imminent environmental risk.24Courthouse News Service. California Department of Parks and Recreation v. Sable Offshore Corp., Order State Parks said it would keep challenging what it called an “egregious trespass on public land.”25Virginia Lawyers Weekly. District Court Denies California Parks Bid, Sable Offshore Pipeline
Sable’s Own Suit
On the day the DPA order issued, Sable filed its own federal lawsuit against the director of California’s Department of Parks and Recreation. The company argued it was caught between contradictory demands: a federal order to restart and a state agency refusing to renew a park easement without additional environmental review. Sable sought a declaratory judgment that federal law and the DPA order preempt state regulation and that the DPA’s liability shield bars the state’s trespass and breach-of-contract claims.26Courthouse News Service. Sable Offshore Corp. v. Quintero, Complaint As of mid-June 2026, no responsive pleading had been filed, with any motion hearing not scheduled before June 29, 2026.27CourtListener. Sable Offshore Corp. v. Quintero, Docket
The Legal Question Underneath
The core issue has not been 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 administration’s position is that DPA orders have the force of federal law under the Supremacy Clause and that the Act’s liability shield preempts state regulation that conflicts with a presidential necessity finding.6U.S. Department of Justice. Preemptive Effect of Defense Production Act Order on State Law California’s position is that the statute was never designed to do that, and that a 0.05% share of global oil production cannot support a national defense determination.3Governor of California. Governor Newsom Condemns Trump for Exploiting Iran War Crisis
Prior uses of the DPA in energy were narrower. The Clinton administration invoked it during the 2000–01 California utility crisis, and the Trump administration applied it to meatpacking plants in 2020. Ordering a private company to restart a shuttered oil pipeline over the objections of state courts and regulators has no clear precedent. Analysts have compared the dispute to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the 1952 Supreme Court case that struck down President Truman’s attempted seizure of steel mills during the Korean War, as a reminder that emergency economic authority has constitutional limits.28Baker Institute for Public Policy. The Defense Production Act’s Expanding Role in Energy
What to Watch Next
Three dates will shape the near-term direction of the fight. The June 1, 2026 preliminary injunction hearing before Judge Wilson will be the first federal test of California’s challenge to the DPA order itself.2California Attorney General. California Preliminary Injunction Motion, State of California v. Wright The July 7, 2026 Ninth Circuit oral argument will test the PHMSA actions that laid the regulatory groundwork for the restart.22CourtListener. State of California v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration And the state court contempt proceedings, set in motion by Judge Geck’s April 17 ruling, will determine what Sable owes for restarting in defiance of the injunction.19Courthouse News Service. Oil Company Violated Court Order by Restarting Santa Barbara Pipeline, Judge Finds Each is a partial answer. The full one — whether a president’s defense determination can compel a state to stand aside while crude flows through a pipeline its own regulators call unsafe — will take considerably longer.