A California Court of Appeal upheld a 2025 preliminary injunction preventing Sable Offshore Corp. from conducting additional pipeline repair work. The June 17, 2026 decision affirms the California Coastal Commission’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders and seek injunctive relief to stop the repair work.
The case stems from the California Coastal Commission’s issuance of cease-and-desist orders in November 2024 and February 2025 after determining Sable was conducting “unpermitted development” work within the Coastal Zone along the Las Flores Pipelines. Sable filed a lawsuit against the Coastal Commission at the time, challenging its authority.
The pipeline repairs have since been completed and the pipeline has been operational since the Trump administration directed Sable to restart the oil pipeline system in March 2026. Sable, however, could still be responsible for the $18 million fine from the Coastal Commission for refusing to comply with its orders to stop work.
In the recent appeal, Sable argued that the California Coastal Commission lacked authority to issue a cease-and-desist order because Santa Barbara County had already determined that the repair work did not require additional coastal permits. According to the company, the County’s decision prevented the Commission from intervening.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, concluding that Santa Barbara County’s decision not to pursue enforcement did not constitute an “action” that deprived the Commission of its independent enforcement authority under the California Coastal Act. The court held that the Commission was authorized to issue its own cease-and-desist order after Santa Barbara County declined to act and that the trial court properly issued a preliminary injunction upon finding a prima facie violation of the Coastal Act.
The appellate court also rejected Sable’s due process and federal preemption arguments, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting the injunction.
Sable also argued that the appeal should be dismissed because much of the pipeline repair work had already been completed before the injunction was issued.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the controversy remains active because the preliminary injunction continues to prohibit future work that the Commission believes requires coastal authorization. As a result, the court held that its decision could still provide meaningful relief and therefore the appeal was not moot.
Limited Decision
The appellate decision addresses only whether the preliminary injunction was properly issued. It does not determine whether Sable ultimately violated the Coastal Act or whether every aspect of the company’s pipeline repair program required a coastal development permit.
Those questions remain before the trial court as litigation over the Commission’s enforcement action continues.