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!
