A 7/28/2026 Dept. of Justice brief submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cites the 5/28/2026 Supreme Court decision in Flowers Foods Inc. v. Brock in asserting that Sable’s onshore pipeline segments are interstate and subject to Federal jurisdiction.
This filing is part of multi-faceted litigation involving Federal preemption, a 2020 Consent Decree, emergency special permits, and state environmental concerns. The Ninth Circuit is handling the expedited briefings and consolidation of petitions.
DoJ’s core argument is that Sable’s onshore segments do not interrupt the continuous “flow of commerce” from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore extraction → onshore processing → further transport to terminals (e.g., in Kern County). Thus, the system qualifies as interstate commerce subject to Federal (PHMSA) oversight rather than state regulation.
The Flowers Foods Inc. v. Brock case considered similar flow of commerce issues. The SCOTUS agreed with the Tenth Circuit that Brock delivery franchisees were engaged in interstate commerce even if they never cross State lines. The gist of the decision is as follows (emphasis added, full decision attached):
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to enforce many private arbitration agreements, but it also provides that “nothing” in the law shall be used to compel arbitration in disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of any class of workers “engaged in . . . interstate commerce.” 9 U. S. C. §1. This case poses the question whether someone can qualify as a worker under the §1 exemption if he never crosses state lines and never interacts with vehicles that do. Flowers Foods, Inc., is a large producer of packaged baked goods with bakeries in 19 States. To get its products to market, the company depends in part on franchisees who buy the distribution rights to Flowers’s products in specific geographic territories. Angelo Brock is one such franchisee serving the Denver area; he picks up Flowers’s products from a warehouse in Colorado and delivers them to local stores, all without leaving the State. In 2022, Brock sued Flowers in federal district court alleging that the company had underpaid him and other distributors in violation of various federal and state laws. Flowers moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the FAA generally requires courts to stay or dismiss cases when the parties have agreed to resolve their disputes by arbitration and that Brock had signed a distribution agreement promising to arbitrate any disagreement. The district court denied Flowers’s motion, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Resting its decision on 9 U. S. C. §1, the Tenth Circuit reasoned that Brock belonged to a class of workers engaged in interstate commerce and thus the court lacked authority to compel arbitration.
We should soon find out what the Ninth Circuit thinks!
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 
Comments from the California AG and Sable Offshore on the special permit application to PHMSA
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged California AG, comment letters, PHMSA, pipeline, Rob Bonta, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, special permit on April 8, 2026| 2 Comments »
I’m attaching the complete comment letters from Sable Offshore and their main antagonist, California Attorney General Bonta, in response to PHMSA’s public notice and request for comments on Sable’s special permit application.
Summary of the California AG’s assertions:
“First, PHMSA is without authority to grant such a special permit because Lines CA-324/325 are intrastate pipelines and California regulators have sole regulatory oversight over any attempt to restart these Lines and issue state waivers. Second, California has vested interests in ensuring Lines CA-324/325 operate safely and PHMSA’s proposed special permit would dilute the higher state safety standards that were imposed on Sable and therefore it is inconsistent with pipeline safety. 49 C.F.R. § 190.341(d). Third, given the fact Line CA-324 already failed and caused a catastrophic oil spill in 2015 in Santa Barbara County, even if PHMSA had authority to issue a special permit (which it does not), a more robust environmental analysis needs to be performed. Fourth, PHMSA unlawfully invokes the Endangered Species Acts’s emergency consultation procedures and has given no indication that it will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, in violation of the Act. Finally, Secretary Wright’s March 13, 2026, order (“DPA
Order”) does not change anything about the propriety of the Application, because the DPA Order itself is unlawful.”
Summary of Sable’s position (screenshot):
You can sample the other public comments, some of which are quite good, by visiting the Regulations.gov docket.
Read Full Post »