California Sues Trump Administration Over Pipeline Jurisdiction
In a bold move, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging federal oversight of two oil pipelines located entirely within California’s borders. This legal action represents the 55th lawsuit California has brought against the Trump administration and highlights the ongoing tension between state authority and federal control over environmental matters.
At the heart of this dispute are two Los Flores pipelines running from Santa Barbara County to Kern County, one of which was responsible for the devastating 2015 Refugio oil spill that released over 100,000 gallons of crude oil into the environment and at least 21,000 gallons into the ocean. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) recently approved the restart of these pipelines, granting operational permission to Sable Offshore Corp. At a news conference held at Dockweiler State Beach, Bonta characterized this approval as “the latest example of Trump doing the oil industry’s bidding,” suggesting the decision prioritizes corporate interests over environmental protection and state sovereignty.
The central legal argument hinges on whether these pipelines fall under state or federal jurisdiction. According to Bonta, since the pipelines are located entirely within California without crossing state lines or extending into federal waters, oversight rightfully belongs to California authorities. The lawsuit alleges that 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.” Bonta claims Sable asked the administration to declare the pipelines “interstate” by falsely classifying them as part of a larger system extending into federal waters on the outer continental shelf—a classification he dismisses as “fantasy” and a “pretext to usurp state oversight.”
What makes this case particularly significant is its focus on jurisdictional authority rather than the environmental merits of restarting the pipelines themselves. “The lawsuit isn’t about whether the pipelines should be restarted, but whether California or the Trump administration gets to make the decision,” Bonta explained. This framing elevates the dispute beyond environmental policy to fundamental questions about federalism and states’ rights—traditionally conservative principles—in a case being brought by a progressive state government. The irony highlights how principles of local control and federal overreach can transcend political affiliations when specific interests are at stake.
The 2015 Refugio spill looms large over this legal battle, serving as a potent reminder of the potential consequences of pipeline failures. The incident caused significant environmental damage to California’s coastline and marine ecosystems, leading to years of cleanup efforts and legal repercussions. For many Californians, the memory of oil-coated beaches and wildlife remains fresh, making state oversight of these pipelines a particularly emotional issue. Local communities and environmental groups have expressed concerns that federal regulation might be less stringent than California’s notoriously strict environmental standards, potentially increasing the risk of another catastrophic spill.
As this case moves forward, it represents more than just another legal skirmish between California and the Trump administration—it embodies fundamental questions about environmental protection, energy infrastructure, and the balance of power between states and the federal government. The outcome will likely influence how similar jurisdictional disputes are resolved across the country, potentially affecting oil and gas infrastructure projects nationwide. While the White House has yet to respond to requests for comment, the case promises to be closely watched by both energy industry stakeholders and environmental advocates as it progresses through the courts. Whatever the ultimate decision, this lawsuit underscores California’s willingness to aggressively defend what it perceives as its regulatory authority, especially when environmental protection is at stake.
