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

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding in progress

Case Summary

On March 23, 2026, the State of California filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 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 alleged…

On March 23, 2026, the State of California filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 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⁻.

This case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Claire Pollard (3/27/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72533198/parties/state-of-california-v-wright/


Judge(s)

Seeborg, Richard G. (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Almendras, Annadel A. (California)

Beck, Dennis L. (California)

Hunter, Rebecca (California)

Roessler, Alicia Irene (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

3:26-cv-02500

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive and Other Relief

State of California v. Wright et al.

March 23, 2026

March 23, 2026

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72533198/state-of-california-v-wright/

Last updated April 20, 2026, 3:10 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF against Chris Wright ( Filing fee $ 405, receipt number ACANDC-21786471.). Injunction against the US government/official or APA vacatur requested. Filed by State of California. (Almendras, Annadel) (Filed on 3/23/2026) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

March 23, 2026

March 23, 2026

Clearinghouse
2

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned using a proportionate, random and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Richard Seeborg. Counsel are instructed that all future filings shall bear the updated judicial initials immediately after the case number. Counsel are reminded to verify the location of the judge on the court website. All hearing and trial dates presently scheduled are vacated. However, existing briefing schedules for motions remain unchanged. Motions must be renoticed for hearing before the judge to whom the case has been reassigned, but the renoticing of the hearing does not affect the prior briefing schedule. Other deadlines such as those for ADR compliance and discovery cutoff also remain unchanged. Mark B. Busby Clerk, United States District Court (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pjf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2026) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

March 24, 2026

March 24, 2026

3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE VENUE (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2026) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

March 24, 2026

March 24, 2026

RECAP
4

Proposed Summons. (Beck, Dennis) (Filed on 3/24/2026) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

March 24, 2026

March 24, 2026

RECAP

Case Assigned/Reassigned

March 24, 2026

March 24, 2026

Electronic Filing Error

March 24, 2026

March 24, 2026

Electronic filing error. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Alicia Roessler. The docket shows a different address from what is appearing on the document Re: 1 Complaint, filed by State of California. Please update your personal profile on ECF. (kxo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2026)

March 24, 2026

March 24, 2026

Electronic filing error. Not all parties listed in the Complaint and Summons have been added to the docket. Please add the missing parties using the event Notice of Additional Parties. The event can be found at: Civil Events > Other Filings > Notices > Notice of Additional Parties. Re: 1 Complaint, filed by State of California.Re: 4 Proposed Summons Re-file Summons once party has been added (kxo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2026.

March 24, 2026

March 24, 2026

5

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice by State of California (Beck, Dennis) (Filed on 3/30/2026) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

March 30, 2026

March 30, 2026

RECAP

Terminate Civil Case

March 31, 2026

March 31, 2026

***Civil Case Terminated. Per Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice 5 . (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2026)

March 31, 2026

March 31, 2026

Case Details

State / Territory:

California

Case Type(s):

Environmental Justice

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 23, 2026

Case Ongoing: Yes

Case Details

Other Dockets:

Northern District of California 3:26-cv-02500

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Recommended Citation