Case: State of California v. Wright
3:26-cv-02500 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed Date: March 23, 2026
Closed Date: March 31, 2026
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged the federal government’s alleged overreach under the Defense Production Act to force the restart of oil pipelines in California, bypassing state and federal environmental laws, court orders, and regulatory requirements.
On March 23, 2026, the State of California filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its Secretary, James Wright. The case arose from a dispute over onshore oil pipelines along the Santa Barbara coast that had been shut down in 2015 following a catastrophic rupture that spilled over 120,000 gallons of oil onto Refugio State Beach. The pipeline operator, Sable Offshore Corporation, was allegedly desperate to restart the pipelines due to severe undercapitalization and pressure from ExxonMobil, which financed the acquisition. On March 13, 2026, Secretary Wright allegedly issued an order under the Defense Production Act (the "Wright Order") directing Sable to immediately restart the pipelines, despite outstanding preliminary injunctions, lack of necessary permits, and violations of state and federal law. Sable allegedly restarted the pipelines the next day, March 14, 2026, in direct violation of court orders and regulatory requirements. California brought this action under federal question jurisdiction, asserting claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional grounds. The state alleged that the Wright Order violated the APA by being contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority, as well as arbitrary and capricious. California also asserted constitutional claims for violations of separation of powers and the Tenth Amendment regarding sovereign state interests. The state sought a judicial declaration that the Wright Order was unconstitutional and unlawful, vacatur of the order, and an injunction preventing defendants from using the order to authorize pipeline operations without necessary state approvals and court order compliance. The case was assigned to Judge Richard Seeborg.
On March 24, 2026, the Court sua sponte ordered the plaintiff to show cause why venue was proper in the Northern District of California, noting that venue appeared more appropriate in the Central and/or Eastern District of California because the underlying events occurred there. Although the state preliminarily relied on the catchall provision in 28 USC 1391(b)(3) to assert proper venue, it subsequently filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on March 30, 2026 and indicated its intent to refile in a different California district, and did so the next day in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (2:26-cv-03396). This lawsuit was therefore dismissed on March 31, 2026.
Summary Authors
Kara Wilczynski (6/26/2026)
Claire Pollard (3/27/2026)
Related Cases
State of California v. Wright, Central District of California (2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72533198/parties/state-of-california-v-wright/
Seeborg, Richard G. (California)
Almendras, Annadel A. (California)
Beck, Dennis L. (California)
Hunter, Rebecca (California)
Roessler, Alicia Irene (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72533198/state-of-california-v-wright/
Last updated July 22, 2026, 3:24 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 23, 2026
Closing Date: March 31, 2026
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is the state of California
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
United States Department of Energy
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Federalism (including 10th Amendment)
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 3:26-cv-02500
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Environmental Justice and Resources:
Petroleum and petroleum byproducts
Case Summary of State of California v. Wright, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47963/ (last updated 3/27/2026).