California Sues Trump Administration Over Sable Pipeline (2)

California is suing the Trump administration for giving Sable Offshore Corp. permission to restart a controversial oil pipeline in the state, calling the federal government’s actions “an unlawful power grab.”

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and its orders are capricious and arbitrary, the attorney general’s office alleged in a press release Friday. The state is asking the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn the agency’s actions.

“The Trump administration unlawfully undermined California’s authority, unlawfully federalized the pipelines and usurped state control, and unlawfully issued Sable a sham emergency permit to begin pumping oil when there’s absolutely no emergency,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a press conference Friday.

California’s suit comes a little more than a month after PHMSA, which is under the US Department of Transportation, determined that the Las Flores Pipeline is an interstate pipeline and therefore under the federal agency’s jurisdiction instead of California’s Office of the State Fire Marshal. Days after that determination, PHMSA issued an emergency special permit for Sable to restart the system.

“This lawsuit is not about whether or not the pipelines should ultimately be restarted,” Bonta said. “It’s about who gets to decide: California or Trump. The answer is clear: the state of California gets to decide.”

PHMSA stepped into the fight over the system after the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in December rejected Sable’s request to take over permits that would allow the company to operate onshore facilities it bought from two other oil companies a couple of years prior. Exxon Mobil Corp., one of the companies Sable bought the onshore facilities from, Sable, and others sued the local California board last May for taking too long to approve the transfer of the permits, which the companies said was required under county rules.

California says in its petition for review that it’s challenging PHMSA over three different actions: the agency’s order taking over jurisdiction of the pipelines, its approval of Sable’s restart plan, and the emergency special permit PHMSA granted Sable that the state said waives compliance with federal regulations governing pipeline safety.

A PHMSA spokesperson defended the agency’s decision to deem the pipeline an interstate pipeline and said it “was regulated for decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations” as such, but “was only redesignated as intrastate in 2016 when it was taken out of service.” The agency decided the recent jurisdiction change “was appropriate” after considering the facts Sable shared with the administration in November, the spokesperson said in an email.

“Restarting the Las Flores Pipeline will bring much needed American energy to a state with the highest gas prices in the country,” the spokesperson said. “We look forward to a swift resolution in this case to provide the operator with regulatory certainty and Californians with affordable American energy.”

Sable didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A part of the pipeline system in question ruptured in 2015 and led to an oil spill that spread to the Pacific Ocean, an incident Bonta raised multiple times in his press conference announcing the state’s petition held in front of a California beach. The pipelines have been shut down since that incident, according to Bonta’s office.

California’s lawsuit is the most recent in what has been a string of legal battles over the pipeline’s restart, and isn’t the first challenging PHMSA’s actions. It’s the state’s 55th lawsuit against the Trump administration overall, Bonta said Friday.

Last month, a group of environmental organizations lobbed their own lawsuit against PHMSA, alleging the agency violated federal law in issuing Sable a permit, but a federal appeals court a few weeks ago ruled against the groups and allowed the company to restart the pipeline.

The case is California v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration, 9th Cir., 1/23/26