California’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco on Monday, challenges a March 13 emergency order that would restart an offshore oil pipeline off the Santa Barbara coast that has been shut down for more than a decade. The state argues the order represents what it calls an overreach of federal emergency power under the Defense Production Act.
California’s attorneys said the Trump administration’s energy-emergency claim is not supported and that the federal government is using emergency authority to push past state oversight. Attorney General Rob Bonta told reporters, “No matter how much President Trump may claim there’s a so-called national energy emergency — it’s just not true,” and said, “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 complaint argues that U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s order went beyond what the Defense Production Act allows, and that it cannot be used to override state requirements. California’s filing says the statute is intended to prioritize contracts during emergencies rather than force a pipeline restart, according to the lawsuit’s framing in the case brought in San Francisco.
The case also focuses on how the federal action intersects with California’s existing approvals process. The lawsuit points to a March 3 Justice Department legal opinion that, according to the report, laid the groundwork for the emergency order to preempt state law and even override a 2020 federal consent decree requiring approval from the California State Fire Marshal before the pipeline can restart.
The fight pits California officials and environmental groups against the Trump administration and Sable Offshore Corp. Sable, which bought the pipeline system from ExxonMobil in 2024, has told investors that restarting could increase production from about 30,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to more than 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, with oil flowing to refineries in Los Angeles, Bakersfield and the Bay Area.
Environmental groups and experts argue that forcing the pipeline back into production would not lower gasoline prices but would put coastal wildlife at risk. They also warn that the restart would set a precedent for federal authority to override state control when emergencies are invoked.
The litigation comes after multiple legal and regulatory actions involving the pipeline. 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, a decision the state of California and environmental groups challenged; that dispute is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In February, a Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge ordered that the pipeline remain shut down, ruling that earlier 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 Monday, the report said.
The lawsuit adds to an extended dispute over offshore oil operations in California and arrives as fuel prices have been moving upward in the wake of the Iran conflict, according to the report.