A lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco set off a fresh round in California’s fight with the Trump administration over a long-shut offshore oil pipeline on the Santa Barbara coast. In the complaint filed Monday, California asked a judge to block what it described as an emergency order that would force a restart after more than a decade.
The legal action targets a March 13 order by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, which California argued goes beyond what the Defense Production Act allows. The state said the federal emergency authority can’t be used to override state law or to force the pipeline back into operation.
California also tied the dispute to broader questions about what counts as an energy emergency. Attorney General Rob Bonta told reporters that, in California’s view, the administration’s premise was false, saying, “No matter how much President Trump may claim there’s a so-called national energy emergency — it’s just not true,” and adding that “The U.S. already produces significantly more oil and gas than we use — it’s a completely fabricated claim intended to curry favor with the oil industry.”
The lawsuit names the Trump administration and Sable Offshore Corp., according to the complaint described in reporting. The fight comes as fuel prices have jumped after the Iran conflict, and it also arrives at a moment when the pipeline’s ownership has changed. Sable, which bought the system from ExxonMobil in 2024, has told investors it expects production to rise from about 30,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to more than 50,000 if the system restarts, sending oil to refineries in Los Angeles, Bakersfield and the Bay Area.
California argued that the Defense Production Act was designed to prioritize contracts in emergencies, not to force infrastructure restarts while disregarding state authority. The state said the administration failed to meet the law’s baseline requirements, including demonstrating an actual energy shortage.
A key part of California’s argument also focuses on whether the federal order could interfere with state oversight and prior federal arrangements. Reporting said a March 3 U.S. Department of Justice legal opinion laid the groundwork for concluding that an emergency order could preempt state law and override a 2020 federal consent decree requiring approval from the California State Fire Marshal before the pipeline can restart.
The dispute also centers on environmental and public-interest claims about the effects of restarting the pipeline. Environmental groups and experts argued that forcing the pipeline back into production would not lower gasoline prices, while warning that the restart could put coastal wildlife at risk. The reporting also described the broader backdrop of opposition in California to expanded offshore oil leasing along the West Coast.
Sable has faced legal pressure on multiple fronts. In December, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ruled that the infrastructure qualifies as an interstate pipeline and issued an emergency permit approving a restart plan; environmental groups and California challenged that decision, with the case pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Earlier this month, a Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge ordered the pipeline to remain shut down, ruling that previous federal intervention was not enough to override an injunction requiring Sable to obtain state approvals before restarting.
Representatives for Sable, the Energy Department and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to the reporting. The federal lawsuit will now test how far the administration’s emergency powers can reach when state environmental and safety requirements are at stake.