The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the merits of the challenge to PHMSA’s assertion of exclusive Federal jurisdiction over Sable Offshore Corp.’s Las Flores (Santa Ynez) pipeline segments (CA-324 and CA-325) or related restart approvals. A three-judge panel ordered additional briefing after a status conference, and a decision is expected to take months.
The 9th Circuit panel held a video status conference on 10/5/2026, and consolidated petitions from the Environmental Defense Center (and other groups) and the State of California. The panel ordered further briefing rather than issuing an immediate decision on the core jurisdictional question—whether the onshore pipeline segments engage in “interstate commerce” under the Pipeline Safety Act (making them subject to exclusive PHMSA authority rather than California’s Office of the State Fire Marshal).
Concise background summary from Grok: PHMSA reclassified the pipelines as interstate in late 2025 (asserting jurisdiction because they transport crude from Outer Continental Shelf platforms through California to a Kern County terminal, with arguments that onshore processing does not break the flow of interstate commerce). This enabled restart approvals and special permits (initially emergency, later a longer-term one) that environmental groups and California challenge as unlawful, preemptive of state authority, and deficient under the Pipeline Safety Act, NEPA, and ESA. Sable restarted operations earlier in 2026 amid related litigation (including Defense Production Act issues and consent-decree matters in district court). The Ninth Circuit cases are Environmental Defense Center et al. v. PHMSA (No. 25-8059) and the consolidated California petition (originally No. 26-508 / related Nos.).
