A California judge ruled Friday that Sable Offshore Corp. lacks the authority to bypass state restrictions and restart its coastal pipeline operations, despite a federal executive order from President Donald Trump.

Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Donna Geck upheld an existing state injunction against the energy company, blocking its attempt to resume oil transport near the Southern California coast. 

The ruling marks a significant legal setback for the Trump administration's efforts to fast-track domestic energy production over state-level environmental protections. 

The legal battle centers on a pipeline that has been shuttered since 2015, following a massive leak that released thousands of barrels of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean. 

While the Department of Energy noted that restarting the Santa Ynez Unit would increase California’s in-state production by 15%— displacing roughly 1.5 million barrels of foreign crude monthly—state officials argue the risks to the coastline remain too high.

In March, President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era statute, to order the immediate resumption of drilling and transport. The administration cited national security concerns stemming from the ongoing U.S. conflict with Iran.

Sable Offshore resumed operations shortly after the order, arguing that federal authority superseded the state’s 2024 preliminary injunction. 

Geck disagreed, reinforcing that the gas giant must comply with state regulatory oversight regardless of federal mandates.

"A California court just confirmed what we have said all along: Trump and his Big Oil donors are not above the law," Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement Friday.

Environmental groups, who originally sought the injunction, celebrated the decision. Talia Nimmer, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, stated that every day the pipeline remains active puts the company in direct violation of the law.

Sable Offshore and the Department of Energy did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

A hearing is scheduled for May 22 to determine if the company should be held in contempt of court, a move that could result in heavy financial penalties.