California judge rebukes Trump-backed plan that bypasses state authority in oil pipeline restart

Grace Toohey, Los Angeles Times on Apr 20, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

LOS ANGELES — In a rebuff of the Trump administration's push to restart oil pipelines off California's Central Coast, a state judge has ruled that a recent executive order does not override state regulations concerning oil operations.

It remains unclear exactly what effect the ruling may have on pipeline operator Sable Offshore Corp., which faces a number of legal challenges from California authorities.

Environmental groups, however, celebrated Friday's ruling as a "win for the rule of law," and Gov. Gavin Newsom called it a "rebuke of the Trump administration and Sable's ploy to illegally use emergency powers to bypass California law."

Last month, the Trump administration invoked the Defense Production Act when it directed Sable to commence operations and send crude flowing through a network of undersea and on-land oil lines. The administration argued that the order preempted several California laws, regulations and court orders, which had, for months, blocked the pipelines' restart.

In Friday's ruling, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Donna Geck upheld a preliminary injunction issued last summer against Sable, prohibiting the pipeline system's restart until the Houston-based company adheres to all state and local regulations.

"Nothing ... permits a party subject to a (Defense Production Act) order to violate other laws," Geck wrote in the ruling. She cited case law from two other similar federal court decisions, which "strongly implies that the (Defense Production Act) order, by itself, does not permit the violation of applicable state regulatory law."

Experts say Geck's ruling could signal how other judges — including in upcoming federal court cases — may rule on the Trump administration's push to restart the pipelines.

Allan Marks, a professor at UCLA's law school who has a background in energy law, pointed to similar challenges of the Trump administration's meddling in offshore projects, particularly East Coast wind farms, which the courts have largely rejected.

He said Geck's ruling followed similar logic, reaffirming "that the pipelines cannot legally be restarted without complying with state permitting requirements," Marks said.

Sable has repeatedly clashed with state and local regulators as it has worked to restart the pipelines, which run through Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Kern counties but are linked to three offshore oil rigs. The lines had sat unused since 2015, when a pipe rupture caused one of the state's largest oil spills.

Trump officials have rushed to support the project, arguing it will increase domestic oil production, especially as gas prices soar due to the war with Iran — despite ongoing regulatory issues, including criminal charges against Sable.

Much about the project, however, remains tied up in legal challenges, including the future of a federal consent decree supposed to outline any pipeline restart and an assertion from California that the company is now trespassing through Gaviota State Park.

Geck acknowledged the other ongoing legal disputes, but said they don't diminish the authority of the court, saying she was "deeply concerned with noncompliance with the preliminary injunction."

Sable had requested that Geck rescind the state court injunction following the executive order to restart the pipelines. The company argued the federal order preempts any requirement from California regulators, including court orders.

Geck disagreed. She will soon consider if the company should be found in contempt of court.

"This preliminary injunction is another reminder that Sable is not above the law," said Mati Waiya, executive director for the Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation, one of the groups that sued to ensure Sable complies with environmental protections. "We will continue the fight to protect our home."

_____