LOS ANGELES (KEYT) – On Friday, California Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit alleging that the Trump Administration's use of a Cold War-era law to force a restart of local oil production was unconstitutional.
On March 13, the Trump Administration announced it had ordered Sable Offshore, a Houston-based private energy company, to restart oil production, including the use of onshore pipelines shuttered since a massive oil spill from a ruptured pipeline in 2015.
Since onshore pipeline Line 901, now known as Line 324, ruptured in 2015, the pipelines and the entire oil-generating system has remained dormant and oversight of their restart has been assigned to the Office of State Fire Marshal through a federal court order.
Regardless of that federal court order, the resumption of oil production was later confirmed by Your News Channel.
According to the 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".
"The Trump Administration remains committed to putting all Americans and their energy security first," stated Secretary Wright Friday. "Unfortunately, some state leaders have not adhered to those same principles, with potentially disastrous consequences not just for their residents, but also our national security. Today's order will strengthen America’s oil supply and restore a pipeline system vital to our national security and defense, ensuring that West Coast military installations have the reliable energy critical to military readiness."
The Trump Administration's order to restart did not explicitly direct crude oil from the Santa Ynez Unit for exclusive military uses nor limit its destination to the nation's strategic petroleum reserve.
While the Secretary of Energy stated that state leaders were to blame for the continued closure of onshore oil pipelines, a restart of the entire system was actually subject to the conditions of a federal consent decree agreed to by the former operators of the system in federal court.
Despite that agreement in federal court that required the Office of State Fire Marshal to manage restart plans, earlier the same month, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a slip opinion that argued the President, or a designated person, could order Sable Offshore, the Houston-based company seeking to restart oil production since purchasing the Santa Ynez Unit from ExxonMobil in February of 2024, to begin oil production immediately -skirting federal, state, and local regulatory authority- for national security purposes.
"[Oil produced in California] is used by the 50 military bases in California, Nevada, and Arizona. And that's the reason why Trump invoked the Defense Production Act," argued Sable Offshore's CEO Jim Flores during an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham after the forced restart. "He has to make sure those military bases and those sailors and airmen and so forth have fuel for their jets and their boats and so on."
In response, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit against the forced restart the same month.
"Restarting the flow of oil through Lines CA-324/325 does not fix any of these purported problems," stated Attorney General Bonta in his March lawsuit. "Defendants' national defense and national energy emergency justifications are patently unreasoned. To the contrary, the offshore platforms have a maximum expected gross oil rate of 50,000 barrels per day, contributing a fraction of a percent to the domestic energy market. Although international conflict has driven up oil prices globally by reducing oil exports from the Middle East, there is no actual shortage of crude oil in the United States; the incremental oil production the Wright Order directs would thus neither address a shortage (because there is none) nor lower the cost of crude oil in the United States (because this miniscule incremental production would not have an impact on the global price of oil). And even if there were any marginal benefit to the "national defense," it would be vastly outweighed by the environmental and safety risks, as well as the unlawful and unconstitutional displacement of the State’s police powers and the intrusion upon the State's sovereign property rights."
Sable was complying with the condition of the federal consent decree up until late last year.
The company submitted a Request for Approval of Restart Plans in September of last year to the California Office of State Fire Marshal in accordance with the federal consent decree and the state safety regulator found that there were still outstanding steps required before approving restart.
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.
The Department of Transportation agreed with Sable Offshore's assessment and promptly asserted its authority over restart plans in mid-December.
Outside of federal and state regulatory hurdles barring a restart, Sable was already facing civil charges brought by the California Attorney General and criminal charges brought by the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office regarding its completed pipeline repair work.
While those existing charges were not eliminated by the forced restart of oil production, the Department of Justice's memorandum did attempt to preempt liability after a restart is ordered under the authority of the Defense Production Act.
"[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."
Friday's lawsuit argued that the Defense Production Act was never intended to circumvent the law and instead written to prioritize defense production over civilian projects.
"Section 101(a) [of the Defense Production Act of 1950] is not a blank check for the Executive to do whatever it wants," stated Friday's lawsuit. "The twice-repeated word 'priority'—and the phrase 'in preference to other contracts or orders' [from the Defense Production Act of 1950]—makesplain what is meant: If an entity has multiple contracts or orders, section 101(a) allows the federal government to determine which should be fulfilled or accepted before others—for instance, by ordering Sable to fulfill orders for military suppliers before civilian suppliers."
In late March, Your News Channel confirmed that Sable had sold crude oil from the Santa Ynez Unit to Chevron.
"That is an important power [granted by the Defense Production Act of 1950], since the national defense may sometimes require prioritizing defense consumption above non-defense consumption, notwithstanding existing private contracts," Attorney General Bonta explained in Friday's lawsuit. "DOE [U.S. Department of Energy] purports to order Sable, under the Wright Order, to transport oil when it otherwise would have fulfilled no contracts at all because of prohibitions under court orders and state law. Sable is 'directed to accept and perform such contracts' not in priority to other contracts, but as an absolute matter."
The fact that Chevron is buying oil from the Santa Ynez Unit has a substantial impact outside of the claims made by supporters of its restart and potential violations of federal law noted in Friday's lawsuit.
Court documents show that Sable initially secured a $622,000,000 loan from ExxonMobil to fund the purchase of the Santa Ynez Unit from the oil giant.
That line of credit had a very important condition.
Ownership of the Santa Ynez Unit would revert back to ExxonMobil unless oil from the Santa Ynez Unit under Sable's management enters the market.
That deadline and impact of sales were noted not just by Your News Channel author, but also by California's Attorney General Rob Bonta when the state filed a lawsuit regarding the forced restart in mid-March.
"As a condition of the acquisition [of the Santa Ynez Unit], if Sable did not restart production by January 1, 2026, ExxonMobil had the right of reversion," stated the state's lawsuit in mid-March. "[T]he Wright Order [directing a restart] does not say, and no public information indicates, that Sable holds a Title I government contract or that Sable is required to sell its crude to the government in a Title 1 contract. The Wright Order also fails to state where, or to whom, Sable will sell the crude oil it produces."
"The pipeline operator then relied on the [U.S. Secretary of Energy] Wright Order, and a contemporaneous opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, to argue that any state laws or existing court orders standing in the way of restart could be ignored and set aside," detailed the Attorney General's lawsuit. "The very next day, on March 14, 2026, the pipeline operator restarted pumping oil through pipelines despite an outstanding preliminary injunction in state court, despite not having necessary permits from either the state or the federal government for pipeline operation, despite still not having approval from several state agencies, and despite not having a current or valid easement to keep or utilize the segment of its pipeline crossing California state property."
A spokesperson on behalf of ExxonMobil declined to comment on the change in ownership indirectly facilitated by the Trump Administration when reached for clarification by Your News Channel.
Your News Channel made numerous requests for more information about the destination of crude oil from the Santa Ynez Unit with both Sable Offshore and the Department of Energy, especially regarding the claims of an explicit national security purpose. No direct response has been received to date.
Instead, on Wednesday, March 25, 2026, Your News Channel author received an email from a Department of Energy spokesperson in response to questions about the restart of local oil production that stated:
"Despite being home to more than 30 military installations, California has adopted policies that have left our forces—and $4.1 trillion of our Nation’s GDP—dependent on imported oil. This is an untenable threat to our national security, especially in a time of military conflict.
Instead of correcting these self-inflicted vulnerabilities, California leaders are attempting to block the Secretary’s efforts to restart critical infrastructure and strengthen domestic energy production. California leaders should stop prioritizing political agendas over America’s energy security."
The judge who oversaw the agreement in federal court regarding the restarted onshore pipelines, the state of California, its elected leaders, nor its voters have been officially designated under federal law as a national security threat in any publicly available listing from any federal agency.
Multiple questions regarding the above statement from the U.S. Department of Energy designating tens of millions of Americans as a national security threat went unanswered and the statement is now subject to active Freedom of Information Act requests with both the federal energy agency and the Department of Defense.
According to the Department of Justice's slip opinion, Sable Offshore would not be liable for compliance with federal directives even if the authorizing action is eventually removed or even found illegal.
"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 from liability 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."
That proactive approach to the forced restart from the beginning is something Attorney General Bonta noted in Friday's lawsuit.
"The inclusion of preemptive language in some parts of the DPA [Defense Production Act of 1950] but not this one is telling: Congress intended no general preemptive authority for DPA orders," stated the state's lawsuit filed Friday. "At most, when the DPA is used to require companies to prioritize some contracts over others, that implies preemption of the state contract laws that would ordinarily govern competing contractual claims. But such a possibility is not at issue here: The Wright Order does not instruct Sable on how to choose among competing contracts, as explained above. Rather, DOE asserts that the Wright Order compels Sable to choose production activities over state laws and court orders that prohibit those activities."
Crucially, the Defense Production Act of 1950 may not even grant the power to prioritize federal contracts over civilian ones to the Executive argued Attorney General Bonta.
"Nor can the DPA be reasonably read as authorizing the Executive Branch to flout federal judicial orders. Certainly nothing in the text of the DPA hints at such a power. For Congress to grant such a power would be extraordinary—and for the Executive to exercise it would be unconstitutional."
California's Attorney General concluded the lawsuit by asking that federal courts preliminarily enjoin the listed defendants from using the Trump Administration's authorization and instead, comply with the existing federal court agreement.
California Attorney General files lawsuit in federal court challenging forced restart of oil production News Channel 3-12.
Hence then, the article about california attorney general files lawsuit in federal court challenging forced restart of oil production 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 ( California Attorney General files lawsuit in federal court challenging forced restart of oil production )
Also on site :
- Inside the chaos at Canoo, the zero-revenue, cash-burning EV company that just inked a major deal with Walmart
- Zelensky’s inner circle accused of war profiteering
- ServiceNow just unveiled an AI workforce that can run your entire company: ‘Enterprises need AI that senses, decides, and securely acts’