In a tentative ruling on April 17, 2026, a Santa Barbara County judge denied Sable Offshore Corp.’s effort to rescind the preliminary injunction prohibiting the restart of the Las Flores Pipeline System. The injunction against the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) requires Sable to provide advance notice before restarting onshore pipeline operations. Sable restarted the pipeline in March after a directive from the Secretary of Energy issued under the authority of the Defense Production Act (DPA).
In its application to dissolve the preliminary injunction, Sable argued that the Secretary of Energy’s order was a material change justifying dissolution of the preliminary injunction order. The company argued that the order preempts the preliminary injunction, which prevents the Fire Marshal and Sable from proceeding with the restart of the Las Flores Pipeline System until 10 days after it gives notice to the court that it received the necessary approvals and permits.
Judge Donna Geck said the order does not release Sable from the injunction. “[T]here is no conflict between the Federal Consent Decree and the preliminary injunction,” the judge wrote. “The conflict issue raised by Sable is not a conflict between state law and federal law, but a conflict between the DPA Order, as interpreted here by Sable, and the Federal Consent Decree. To the extent that the Federal Consent Decree is binding on the parties, there is no preemption issue.”
The judge stated that there is a “binding federal judgment in the Federal Consent Decree which requires favorable action by the OSFM before Sable is permitted to restart the Las Flores Pipelines. As construed by the federal courts, a DPA Order does not by itself permit violation of other federal law to accomplish the goals of the DPA Order.” Sable, the court wrote, “continues to be obligated to the requirements of the Federal Consent Decree.”
“The DPA Order therefore does not constitute a basis for dissolving or modifying the preliminary injunction.”
The court also said it was “deeply concerned” with Sable’s noncompliance with the injunction. The court set for a hearing on May 22 to address whether to issue an order to show cause why Sable “should not be found in contempt.”
The injunction is part of a 2024 suit that the Environmental Defense Center and the Center for Biological Diversity filed against the Fire Marshal. The groups argued that the fire marshal did not comply with environmental review and pipeline safety laws before issuing the waivers for the pipeline.
Sable maintains that it has permission to restart the pipeline under the federal consent decree.