A Judge Says This California Oil Pipeline Can Stay Open — Even Though the State Said No
A federal judge ruled on August 20, 2026, that an oil pipeline off the Santa Barbara coast can keep running, even though California state regulators and environmental groups wanted it shut down. Judge Stephen Wilson moved oversight of the pipeline to the federal government. He said that an order from President Donald Trump, using a law called the Defense Production Act (DPA), overrides any state law that would stop the company, Sable Offshore, from operating the pipeline. The DPA is a law that lets the president force companies to produce things the country needs in an emergency. The judge also fined Sable $1.5 million for breaking the rules of a federal settlement agreement without getting proper approval first. The Guardian
The pipeline, called the Las Flores Pipeline System, had been closed since 2015. That year, a pipe burst and caused one of California's worst oil spills. ExxonMobil used to own it; Sable Offshore bought it in 2024. The pipeline started running again in March 2026 for the first time in over ten years. President Trump had ordered Sable to reopen it, saying the U.S. needed the oil because of the war in Iran. The Guardian
In March 2026, the Trump administration used the DPA's emergency powers to require the pipeline to reopen. The administration argued that California's strict rules were a risk to the country's energy supply. Energy Secretary Chris Wright issued his own emergency restart order, and a federal court later said that was enough legal authority for Sable to keep pumping oil. Bloomberg Law
California fought back in several different courts. The state sued the U.S. Department of Energy in March 2026, arguing that Secretary Wright's restart order broke federal law and the Constitution. In February 2026, a California judge had tentatively ruled that the federal government's intervention was not enough to override the state's authority to keep the pipeline shut. Then in May 2026, a federal court said the California State Parks Department could not block the pipeline. Reuters; CalMatters; Reuters
Sable also faced legal trouble at the county level. A group called the Center for Biological Diversity sued, and a judge in Santa Barbara issued an order blocking the restart. In April 2026, that judge rejected Sable's request to lift the order. The company had asked for reconsideration on January 5, 2026. In a separate case in October 2025, a California judge refused to lift a stop-work order on the Santa Ynez oil pipeline. Center for Biological Diversity; Reuters
Sable says it finished repairing problems and testing the pipeline with pressurized water to check for leaks in May 2025, following the rules of the federal settlement agreement. The company has also sued the California Coastal Commission and is seeking over $100 million in damages from Santa Barbara County for what it calls unlawful actions. Sable Offshore; Sable Offshore
The bigger picture here is about who has the final say — the federal government or individual states. Judge Wilson's ruling sets up a clear pecking order: when the president uses DPA emergency powers, state environmental laws and even property laws take a back seat. The fact that the judge overrode a trespass claim, which is normally a state property issue, shows how far federal authority can reach when national security is used as the reason. For lawyers who work on energy projects and state-federal disputes, this case creates a playbook for how a president can push past state rules.
The $1.5 million fine also sends an important signal. Sable got what it wanted — the pipeline stays open — but the fine for breaking the settlement rules shows that federal courts will still enforce procedural rules, even when they agree with the overall policy goal. California's lawsuit against the Department of Energy is still going, and how that case ends could determine whether courts keep allowing this kind of DPA use.
For the broader energy industry, this case reaches beyond Santa Barbara. Using a Cold War-era law to force open a pipeline that a state had blocked, and justifying it with a foreign conflict, suggests the executive branch is willing to stretch old laws to fit new problems. State regulators and environmental groups now have a higher bar to clear when they try to stop energy projects the federal government wants built.
