SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Calif. (KEYT) – On Tuesday, Judge Donna Geck upheld an injunction against a restart of oil production locally despite an order from the Trump Administration forcing a restart.
Under the injunction, Sable Offshore, the Houston-based company working to restart oil production locally since purchasing oil production infrastructure, collectively called the Santa Ynez Unit, from ExxonMobil in February of 2024, was required to notify the court and involved plaintiffs when it receives all the approvals necessary to restart the use of onshore pipelines at least ten court days before starting.
Despite the injunction's restart conditions, Sable Offshore already restarted production at the Santa Ynez Unit, including onshore pipelines, this Saturday in compliance with an executive order issued late Friday of last week.
"It’s a victory for California that the judge kept this injunction in place, but it’s outrageous Sable has been pushing oil through these pipelines in defiance of this clear court order every day since the restart," said Talia Nimmer, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, a litigant in Tuesday's proceedings. "Every second these pipelines are pumping oil puts Californians and our iconic coast and wildlife at risk of another devastating spill. I look forward to being back in court soon to explain why this illegally restarted pipeline system needs to be shut down. Trump and his cronies won’t stop trying to prop up oil industry profits, but we’ll keep fighting to protect California’s coastal communities and hold Sable accountable for its flagrant disregard of environmental laws."
Litigants are due back in court on April 17, 2026.
According to Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, the federal government issued the order to restart production under the authority of the Defense Production Act of 1950 and delegated to the Energy Secretary by Executive Order 13603 "National Defense Resources Preparedness" due to an energy crisis impacting national security.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a slip opinion that argued the President, or a designated person, can order Sable Offshore to begin oil production immediately despite the injunction and its conditions surrounding a restart upheld Tuesday.
Tuesday's injunction joins other earlier federal, state, and local hurdles to a restart.
Federal Consent Decree
Since 2015, oversight of any plans to restart onshore pipelines needed to transport oil from the Las Flores Canyon Facility on the Gaviota Coast, which receives and processes oil from offshore platforms, has been assigned to the Office of State Fire Marshal since the Refugio Oil Spill of 2015.
The pipeline that ruptured back in 2015, formerly known as Line 901 and now known as Line CA-324, has remained dormant since its rupture in May of 2015, spilling at least 100,000 gallons of crude oil over 150 miles of California coastline and destroying thousands of acres of shoreline habitats.
In September of last year, Sable Offshore submitted a Request for Approval of Restart Plans to the California Office of State Fire Marshal in accordance with the federal consent decree agreed to by the previous owner of the pipelines after the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill.
The state safety regulator found that there were still outstanding steps required before approving restart the following month.
Instead of conducting the requested safety actions, Sable Offshore instead informed investors in December of last year that it had determined that pipelines connecting the onshore oil processing plant on the Gaviota Coast to Pentland Station in Kern County are technically interstate pipelines under the Pipeline Safety Act and requested that federal regulators take over its restart plans.
"Rushing to restart this failed pipeline without following basic federal safety laws and without even making the necessary repairs poses an immediate threat to lives, property, and the environment across a large part of our state," explained the Environmental Defense Center's Chief Counsel Linda Krop, one of the petitioners in the Dec. 24 lawsuit trying to halt the restart. "We can’t allow the Trump administration and Sable to undermine California law and gamble with the safety of everyone living along the pipeline route."
The Department of Transportation agreed with Sable Offshore's assessment and promptly asserted its authority over restart plans in mid-December.
"This pipeline was regulated for decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, as an interstate pipeline," argued a spokesperson on behalf of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) in a statement sent to Your News Channel regarding Friday's lawsuit. "The Las Flores pipeline was only redesignated as intrastate in 2016 when it was taken out of service. Based on the facts presented by Sable in their letter to us last November, PHMSA agreed with the operator that returning the pipeline to our jurisdiction was appropriate."
An 8K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in February of this year revealed that Sable did not make any additional capitol investments or improvements into onshore facilities and pipelines outside of ongoing court proceedings.
Federal Courts and the California State Legislature
Days after the federal approval, environmental advocacy groups filed an emergency lawsuit seeking to block the approval, but the federal court declined to issue a stay on federal approval of restart plans.
Despite the decision to not immediately halt the restart process, the court did grant that the lawsuit would receive expedited processing and, during court proceedings in early January, legal representatives of Sable Offshore admitted that oil production had not restarted at both offshore and onshore pipelines, opening the onshore pipelines up to a recently passed state law.
The new state law, SB 237, would require Sable Offshore to request a coastal development permit among other steps from the California Coastal Commission to conduct any, "Repair, reactivation, and maintenance of an oil and gas facility, including an oil pipeline, that has been idled, inactive, or out of service for five years or more".
Those specifications only apply to shuttered onshore pipelines in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern counties.
State Regulators
During the flurry of approvals and litigation in late December of last year, the California Coastal Commission noted that it had not waived its right under the Coastal Zone Management Act to review the federal regulator's decision to reclassify pipelines and assume authority over restart plans.
The state regulator added that the federal government's expedited approval is also subject to review of compliance under Subpart E of the Coastal Zone Management Act, through the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as through Appendix D of the Consent Decree in U.S. et al v. Plains All American Pipeline, LP and Plains Pipeline, the same court decision agreed to after the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill.
The day after the executive order on Friday directing a restart, the California Department of Parks and Recreation declined the energy company's easement request Saturday before demanding the immediate removal of pipelines from the state agency's jurisdiction.
"Section 8 of the temporary pipeline easement granted to Sable’s predecessor, Celeron Pipeline Company, which expired in 2016 ("Expired Easement"), attached hereto, authorizes State Parks to demand Sable to remove the pipeline and restore the property to its original condition after the end of the term," stated the California Department of Parks and Recreation in a letter to Sable Offshore on March 14, 2026. "This letter demands immediate removal of the pipeline on State Parks’ property pursuant to section 8 of the Expired Easement. State Parks has determined that due to Sable’s excessive drain on state resources and incompatibility of their project with the park unit, State Parks will not be granting Sable an easement to continue to use Gaviota State Park for its oil pipeline operations. Additionally, although, State Parks has discussed the possibility of an easement with Sable, all prior permissions and discussions have been premised on the requirement that Sable comply with all applicable state laws and obtain all applicable state approvals, and Sable has now indicated that it has begun or imminently intends to begin restarting operations without adhering to those requirements or obtaining permission to use the State of California’s land."
In fact, of the 22 pipeline anomalies detected during pipeline condition testing before Saturday's restart, 18 were within the borders of Gaviota State Park, shown as the blue circles on the left side of the image below along Line 325a which is the green line.
"[I]f State Parks does not receive a plan for removal of the pipeline within 10 days of the date of this letter, or if Sable does not confirm in writing to State Parks no later than 12 PM Pacific Time on Monday, March 16, 2026, that it has not restarted Line 325 traveling through Gaviota State Park and that it will not restart that pipeline until and unless it obtains all required state approvals and a new easement from State Parks or obtains a final judicial decision (inclusive of appeals) that any state approvals or easements are not needed, State Parks will pursue legal action to defend the State's property rights, and State Parks reserves the right to take all appropriate legal action in the interim," concluded the state agency.
On Monday, the California Department of State Parks and Recreation shared that, "Sable has shown that it does not intend to comply with State Parks' demand and we will be taking further action."
Public claims made back in May of 2025 by Sable Offshore and the Trump Administration about already restarting oil production may have violated leases issued by the California State Lands Commission.
"This is a significant achievement for the Interior Department and aligns with the Administration's Energy Dominance initiative, as it successfully resumed production in just five months," stated the U.S. Department of Interior in July of 2025. "With production now underway at Sable's Platform Harmony, the Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) continues to work with Sable to bring additional production online."
Tuesday's injunction hearing with Judge Geck was based on a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Wishtoyo Foundation in June of last year tied to waivers granted by the Office of State Fire Marshal regarding pipeline safety requirements as well as the surprising claims to have restarted oil production despite multiple legal and regulatory hurdles barring a restart.
The energy company eventually walked back those restart claims explaining in a disclaimer to investors stating that, "The Santa Ynez Unit assets discussed in this [May 19, 2025] press release have not sold commercial quantities of hydrocarbons since such Santa Ynez Unit assets were shut in during June of 2015 when the only onshore pipeline transporting hydrocarbons produced from such Santa Ynez Unit assets to market ceased transportation. There can be no assurance that the necessary approvals will be obtained that would allow the onshore pipeline to recommence transportation and allow the Santa Ynez Unit assets to recommence sales."
State Law Enforcement
Sable is also facing civil charges brought by the California Attorney General and criminal charges brought by the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office regarding its already completed pipeline repair work.
"In its latest unlawful power grab, the Trump Administration is illegally claiming exclusive federal authority over two of California's onshore pipelines," said Attorney General Rob Bonta in January. "The President is once again prioritizing his donors over our people and communities. California will not stand idly by as the President endangers California's beautiful coastline and our public health to increase profits for his fossil fuel industry friends."
County of Santa Barbara
Further complicating Sable's restart plans was the decision by the County of Santa Barbara's Board of Supervisors to not transfer permits the day before the Department of Transportation publicly shared that it had taken over oversight of the restart process from state safety regulators.
Operating without those permits may pose a financial risk to ExxonMobil which still retains the permits.
Sable eventually filed suit against the County of Santa Barbara regarding the deadlocked result to transfer permits.
Previously, Sable Offshore reached a conditional settlement agreement on Aug. 30, 2024, with Santa Barbara County waiving County-specific safety requirements and permitting regarding a restart of local pipelines.
Ownership of the Santa Ynez Unit
Sable's interest in getting oil to market isn't just tied to a return for it's investors, Sable's purchase of the entire oil-generating infrastructure from ExxonMobil back in February of 2024, has a crucial condition.
Court documents revealed that Sable secured a $622,000,000 loan from Exxon to fund the purchase of the local oil production infrastructure which has a stipulated deadline where ownership would revert back to ExxonMobil unless oil from the Santa Ynez Unit under Sable's management enters the market.
On Nov. 3, 2025, Sable was able to extend that maturation deadline to March 31, 2027.
Sable stated in a press release after the ordered restart that it expects to make its first sales of oil on April 1 of this year at an expected gross oil rate of 50,000 barrels of oil per day and apparently, obtain ownership of the Santa Ynez Unit.
"Sable Offshore is putting California consumers first by increasing domestic supply of crude oil into the California market by approximately 17% and we look forward to continuing to execute as so ordered by the Defense Production Act executed on March 13, 2026," said Jim Flores, Sable Offshore's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "We look forward to working closely with the Department of Energy in fully complying with the DPA and working with the Trump administration to take all necessary steps to deliver the energy necessary for the security and defense of the country."
A spokesperson on behalf of ExxonMobil declined to comment on the change in ownership indirectly facilitated by the Trump Administration when reached for clarification Monday.
"Today, more than 60 percent of the oil refined in California comes from overseas, with a significant share traveling through the Strait of Hormuz—presenting serious national security threats," noted the Secretary of Energy in the oil restart announcement on March 13, 2026.
Approximately 20 million barrels of oil transited the Strait of Hormuz each day before the war in Iran started in late February.
Friday's order from the Trump Administration did not explicitly direct crude oil from the Santa Ynez Unit for exclusive military use nor limit its destination to the nation's strategic petroleum reserve.
"Donald Trump started a war, admitted it would spike gas prices nationwide, and told Americans it was a small price to pay. Now he’s using this crisis of his own making to attempt what he’s wanted to do for years: open California’s coast for his oil industry friends so they can poison our beaches. This wouldn’t lower prices by a cent. This is an attempt to illegally restart a pipeline whose operators are facing criminal charges and prohibited by multiple court orders from restarting," argued California Governor Gavin Newsom in a press release regarding the forced restart. "California will not stand by while the Trump administration attempts to sacrifice our coastal communities, our environment, and our $51 billion coastal economy. The Trump administration and Sable are defying multiple court orders, and we will see them back in court."
Legal Liability
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice issued a slip opinion, authored by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, that argued that the President, or a designated person, can issue an order under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) forcing a restart of oil production.
That Cold War-era law and legal memorandum were cited as the law allowing the Secretary of Energy to demand a restart of the Santa Ynez Unit last week.
"You have asked whether an order issued under the Defense Production Act of 1950 ("DPA" or "Act"), Pub. L. No. 81-774, 64 Stat. 798 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.), to Sable by the President or his delegee would preempt the California laws currently impeding Sable from resuming production and operating the associated pipeline infrastructure," opened the Justice Department opinion issued March 3, 2026. "We conclude that it would."
The Justice Department went on to explain that Sable Offshore would be authorized to bypass federal, state and local regulations in order to restart oil production at the Santa Ynez Unit and operate without any risk of liability while complying with the federal order.
"[S]ection 4511 [of the Defense Production Act of 1950] authorizes the President to control the distribution of materials, services, and facilities, and to require entities to prioritize the performance of some contracts over others, as 'necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense' or 'to maximize domestic energy supplies'," noted the Justice Department opinion. "[T]he DPA makes explicit that orders issued pursuant to the Act displace state-law liability. It provides that "[n]o person shall be held liable for damages or penalties for any act or failure to act resulting directly or indirectly from compliance with a rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to this chapter."
"Such immunity from liability exists even when the related DPA rule, regulation, or order is subsequently 'declared by judicial or other competent authority to be invalid'," added the opinion before further insulating Sable Offshore for compliance with the federal order stating that, "a finding of necessity is likely immune from judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and other statutes, even if the Secretary [of Energy] makes the determination by exercising delegated presidential power."
The legal and regulatory hurdles detailed above would still stand, but Tuesday's injunction was the first test of legal claims that predated the near-absolute removal of liability argued by the Justice Department.
Talia Nimmer with the Climate Law Institute and the Center for Biological Diversity, a plaintiff in the lawsuit heard by Jude Geck Tuesday, posited that the liability shield the Justice Department found in the Defense Production Act of 1950 only extends to contract damages by complying with the federal order.
In other words, Nimmer argues that Sable Offshore and the Trump Administration would still be liable for incidents connected to the use of the Santa Ynez Unit to produce oil locally despite the blanket protection publicly shared by the Department of Justice.
Nimmer noted that Congress did not pass the Defense Production Act to benefit specific private companies nor to preempt legal liability for non-national security related orders.
She intends to request an immediate shutdown of the Santa Ynez Unit and that Judge Geck hold Sable Offshore in contempt for willfully violating the injunction's conditions when they are due back in court next month.
Your News Channel reached out to Sable Offshore and its representatives for comment and more information and its response will be added to this article when it is received.
Judge upholds injunction despite forced restart of local oil production by the Trump Administration News Channel 3-12.
Hence then, the article about judge upholds injunction despite forced restart of local oil production by the trump administration was published today ( ) and is available on News channel ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Judge upholds injunction despite forced restart of local oil production by the Trump Administration )
Also on site :