As Lawsuits Pile Up, California Legislators and Environmental Groups Vow to Keep Fighting Sable Offshore

In Sable Offshore Corp’s push to restart oil production on the Central Coast, it has been met with heavy opposition and legal pressure from the state. 

But with backing from the Trump administration, Sable has yet to buckle. Oil is now flowing again through the same pipeline that ruptured in 2015, causing the devastating Refugio Oil Spill that polluted 150 miles of coastline and damaged sensitive shoreline habitat. 

That memory loomed on Thursday as Senator Adam Schiff joined local officials, Chumash leaders, and environmental advocates at Shoreline Park to reaffirm opposition to Sable’s restart. 

The stage is set for a head-on collision between the state and the federal powers that be. It is already shaping up to be bloody.

Who’s Fighting?

Speaking in front of an ocean backdrop, Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, recapped Sable’s “blatant disregard” of California law since acquiring the Santa Ynez Unit — three offshore platforms, an onshore processing plant, and the two Las Flores pipelines — in 2024 and pursuing a restart. 

In its work to repair the pipeline and restart production — sans state approvals — the Houston-based oil company has racked up cease-and-desist orders, criminal charges, civil claims, and a record $18 million fine from the California Coastal Commission, “all with total disregard to this community, which remembers the last catastrophe from the same pipeline,” Krop said. “Every day that Sable pumps oil off of our coast increases the risk of another massive oil spill.”

At the center of the dispute is the Trump administration’s use of the Defense Production Act to order Sable’s restart of oil production under a declared “energy emergency” — completely disregarding a previous federal court order granting restart authority to the State Fire Marshal. California Attorney General Rob Bonta is challenging the restart order in court, arguing that the federal government cannot use the law to bypass state authority and environmental oversight. 

Krop announced that the Environmental Defense Center, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Earthjustice are filing a motion to intervene in support of California’s case. 

Meanwhile, Sable has publicly celebrated the restart. In an April press release, the company said it resumed oil transportation through the pipelines in compliance with “all applicable safety standards,” while creating jobs and ramping up production from its offshore platforms. Chair and CEO Jim Flores said the company was working “tirelessly to provide American oil from American soil.” Earlier, in March, the company had announced its first sale of oil from its Santa Ynez Unit to Chevron. Two of its platforms are up and running, with the third expected to come online in June, according to the April press release.  

Sable’s biggest critics countered those claims on Thursday. The case for domestic energy production — and the argument that it is less emissions-heavy than importing oil on tankers — was addressed in broad statements discrediting the Trump administration. 

Congressmember Salud Carbajal shared his take on Trump’s alliance with “Big Oil,” noting that the oil and gas industry poured millions into his reelection campaign. Carbajal argued Sable’s production would do little to reduce fuel prices and called those promises “a bogus scam.”

Schiff echoed that argument, tying the issue to broader debates over fossil fuels, energy policy, and Trump’s ongoing war in Iran. 

“So many of these conflicts … end up being about the oil economy, and the more that we can do to wean ourselves off this reliance on fossil fuels, the better we are across the board,” he said. 

He blamed the war in Iran for the “enormous prices at the pump,” and referenced Trump’s response when he was asked about the cost of oil hitting $100 a barrel on May 6. The president said the war in Iran would be “worth it” even if the price went up to $200 a barrel. 

In the grand scheme of things, Schiff said, “this pipeline isn’t going to help at all.” Oil companies are making record profits, he said, and are exporting fuel at record highs. If the restart was really about an energy emergency, he noted, why would Trump be cutting billions in energy investments and attacking solar and wind projects, including paying out companies to kill wind projects in exchange for investments in oil and gas?

“The only beneficiaries here are the oil industry,” he said. “This has nothing to do with national security. It has nothing to do with your price at the pump. It only has to do with the president keeping a promise to the big oil companies, and we are all paying the price.” 

Schiff said he is circulating a congressional letter demanding answers about the administration’s use of the Defense Production Act and calling on Sable to preserve internal communications and records related to the restart, “because if we can’t get accountability in this majority [Republican-controlled Congress] — it’s been very difficult — we’re determined to get it when the majority changes.”

Mati Waiya, tribal chair of the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, spoke in poignant terms of the longstanding relationship between humanity and the sea — including the Chumash’s ancestral ties to the Channel Islands — and the environmental damages wrought by petroleum, from oil spills to plastic pollution.

“What are we taking away from our children, the future mothers and fathers and leaders?” he said. “How long do we accept this brutality?”

What’s Going Through the Courts? 

California State Parks recently sued Sable over the company’s continued use of the four miles of pipelines running through Gaviota State Park without the proper permits. It’s trespassing and a property rights violation, according to the claim.

According to the filing, Sable’s temporary “Right of Entry” permit expired last year after pipeline repair work uncovered multiple anomalies along the line. State Parks says the company failed to restore disturbed land — leading to dig sites overgrown with invasive mustard — and never secured the long-term easement required to continue operating in the park.

That means Sable has no rights “that would allow it to transport oil through Gaviota State Park (or to leave its pipeline in the park),” the filing states. 

State Parks officially declined Sable’s easement request on March 14, the day after the executive order directing a restart. State Parks also demanded that Sable remove the pipelines from the agency’s jurisdiction. 

“Sable has shown that it does not intend to comply with State Parks’s demand, and we will be taking further action,” the department said on Monday, March 16. It filed its civil suit in Santa Barbara Superior Court the next day, and the case was moved to federal court in Los Angeles on March 19. 

On May 5, the Trump administration continued its track-record of stepping in on behalf of Sable, filing a motion for the Justice Department to intervene and defend Sable in federal court. The motion argues that California’s actions threaten federal authority and national security. (Despite the Trump administration’s and Sable Offshore’s claims that producing oil from the Santa Ynez Unit is necessary for national security, there has been no public record of any of that oil being provided or sold to the Department of Defense nor defense contractors.) The parties are scheduled to be back in court on June 8.

Separately, Attorney General Bonta is seeking a preliminary injunction to halt Sable’s production of oil and use of the Las Flores pipelines while California challenges the federal restart order. The first hearing for that motion is scheduled for June 1.   

Another case remains active in Santa Barbara Superior Court before Judge Donna Geck, who previously ordered Sable to obtain all necessary state approvals and provide 10 day’s notice before restarting operations. Environmental groups argue the company violated that injunction by restarting anyway. 

A May 22 hearing will determine whether Sable may be tried in contempt of court.

Additional pressure could come from the California State Lands Commission, which oversees leases for Sable’s offshore pipelines that cross through state waters. Krop said the commission has authorized staff to pursue termination of those offshore leases, potentially cutting off Sable’s ability to transport oil ashore.

“That hasn’t happened yet, but the wheels are in motion, and those offshore pipeline leases are granted on a month-to-month holdover basis,” she said.

Can Sable Be Stopped? 

For now, despite lawsuits and court orders, oil continues flowing.

Krop said environmental groups hope contempt proceedings, financial penalties, and possible new injunctions will eventually force compliance. 

Krop said that, depending on future hearings, Geck could issue a new injunction ordering Sable to shut down, with potential consequences of imprisonment — who would be imprisoned, exactly, is unclear — until the company complies.

“I mean, this is the first time we’ve dealt with this kind of situation,” she said. 

State Parks and the State Lands Commission could also pursue additional enforcement actions if courts side with California. State Parks, she said, may have “more clear or immediate enforcement authority” due to the nature of the agency’s lawsuit. 

“And then, similarly, with the State Lands Commission, it’s a little bit further off, but if they terminate the leases, we expect Sable to continue operating,” she continued. “State Lands would file a lawsuit, try to get an injunction, and try to enforce it.”

Still, she acknowledged the situation is unprecedented — and moving slower than opponents expected.

“The other possibility,” she added, “is Sable runs out of money.”