The administration has hailed the project by Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp. to restart production in waters off Santa Barbara damaged by a 2015 oil spill as the kind of project President Donald Trump wants to increase U.S. energy production.

The state oversees the pipelines that run through Santa Barbara and Kern counties, said Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta.

“The federal administration has no right to usurp California’s regulatory authority,” he said at a news conference. “We’re taking them to court to draw a line in the sand and to protect our coast, beaches and communities from potentially hazardous pipelines.”

But the U.S. Transportation Department agency that approved Sable’s plan pushed back on the lawsuit.

“Restarting the Las Flores Pipeline will bring much needed American energy to a state with the highest gas prices in the country,” said a spokesperson with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Sable did not respond for comment on the lawsuit.

Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term to reverse former President Joe Biden’s ban on future offshore oil drilling on the East and West coasts. A federal court later struck down Biden’s order to withdraw 625 million acres of federal waters from oil development.

The federal administration in November announced plans for new offshore oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts, which the oil industry has backed for years.

But critics say the plans could harm coastal communities and ecosystems.

Bonta said one of the pipelines Sable wants to restart burst in 2015, spilling oil along the Southern California coast. The event was the state’s worst oil spill in decades. More than 140,000 gallons (3,300 barrels) of oil gushed out, blackening beaches for 150 miles (240 kilometers) from Santa Barbara to Los Angeles. It polluted a biologically rich habitat for endangered whales and sea turtles, killing scores of pelicans, seals and dolphins, and decimating the fishing industry.

The drilling platforms were subsequently shuttered.

Sable has faced a slew of legal challenges but has said it is determined to restart production, even if that means confining it to federal waters, where state regulators have virtually no say. California controls the 3 miles (5 kilometers) nearest to shore. The platforms are 5 to 9 miles (8 to 14 kilometers) offshore.

“It’s crazy that we are even talking about restarting this pipeline,” said Alex Katz, executive director of the Environmental Defense Center, a Santa Barbara group formed in response to a catastrophic 1969 California oil spill.

The federal government’s approval to restart the pipelines ignores painful lessons the community learned from the 2015 oil spill, said California Assemblymember Gregg Hart, a Democrat representing Santa Barbara.

“California will not allow Trump and his Big Oil friends to bypass our essential environmental laws and threaten our coastline,” he said in a statement.

California has been reducing the state’s production of fossil fuels in favor of clean energy for years. The movement has been spearheaded partly by Santa Barbara County, where elected officials voted in May to begin taking steps to phase out onshore oil and gas operations.

The post California sues the Trump administration over plans to restart oil pipelines along the coast appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

World War Fee President Trump’s reign of tariffs has been challenged on the left and right by the State of California and the Liberty Justice Center.

On April 2, 2025, the White House announced a broad set of tariffs on goods imported into the States, a tax that generally gets passed on to buyers.

The rates [PDF] range from 11 percent, for Cameroon and Democratic Republic of the Congo, to 145 percent to 245 percent for China, depending on the type of products at issue.

Last week, President Trump paused his retaliatory levies for three months and offered to lower the numbers, China excepted, amid a stock and bond market meltdown triggered by his global trade war. This week, the tariff situation remains in flux, leaving businesses and folks in a fog of uncertainty and facing recession if not depression.

The White House argued the tariffs are necessary to, in part, encourage more manufacturing on American soil and reduce the reliance on foreign factories. The Wall Street Journal called the President’s tariffs “the dumbest trade war in history.”

Rob Bonta, California Attorney General, announced a lawsuit [PDF] Wednesday seeking relief from the President’s allegedly unlawful use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to justify the imposition of his import taxes.

Bonta argues the tariffs will wreak havoc on California’s economy.

“The President’s chaotic and haphazard implementation of tariffs is not only deeply troubling, it’s illegal,” said Bonta. “As the fifth largest economy in the world, California understands global trade policy is not just a game.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom added, “President Trump’s unlawful tariffs are wreaking chaos on California families, businesses, and our economy – driving up prices and threatening jobs. We’re standing up for American families who can’t afford to let the chaos continue.”

The California Office of the Attorney General claims the tariffs, at the very least, will shrink the US economy by $100 billion annually and increase inflation by 1.3 percent, at a cost to the average American family of $2,100.

The Tax Foundation, a non-profit think tank, estimated “Trump’s tariffs will reduce long-run US GDP by 0.8 percent” before any foreign counter-tariffs are considered.

California’s lawsuit, filed in a federal district court in the north of the state, argues the IEEPA does not give the President the power to impose tariffs.

“In the nearly 50-year history of IEEPA, no President has ever used IEEPA to impose tariffs, prior to the unprecedented actions of President Trump in 2025,” the California complaint reads. “IEEPA further provides that ‘[t]he President, in every possible instance, shall consult with the Congress before exercising any of the authorities granted by this chapter and shall consult regularly with the Congress so long as such authorities are exercised.'”

And no such consultation took place, the legal filing insists.

The Liberty Justice Center (LJC) describes itself as “a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-interest litigation firm that seeks to protect economic liberty, private property rights, free speech, and other fundamental rights.” Source Watch calls the LJC as a right-wing organization, citing ties to the conservative Illinois Policy Institute.

Nonetheless, the LJC makes similar arguments to those raised by California’s lawsuit in its complaint [PDF] against the White House’s drive to make Americans pay more for their foreign-made stuff, filed with the US Court of International Trade.

“The President of the United States claims the authority to unilaterally levy tariffs on goods imported from any and every country in the world, at any rate, calculated via any methodology – or mere caprice – immediately, with no notice, or public comment, or phase-in, or delay in implementation, despite massive economic impacts that are likely to do severe damage to the global economy,” the LJC complaint argues.

“If actually granted by statute, this power would be an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive without any intelligible principle to limit his discretion.

“But Congress has not delegated any such power. The statute the President invokes — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – does not authorize the President to unilaterally issue across-the-board worldwide tariffs.”

The LJC lawsuit has been filed on behalf of five businesses allegedly harmed by the tariffs: Beverage importer VOS Selections, e-commerce biz FishUSA, plastic pipe maker Genova Pipe, educational electronics kit maker MicroKits, and cycling apparel firm Terry Precision Cycling.

“No one person should have the power to impose taxes that have such vast global economic consequences,” said Jeffrey Schwab, LJC senior counsel, in a statement. “The Constitution gives the power to set tax rates – including tariffs – to Congress, not the President.”

Both California and the LJC have sought relief from the judicial branch of the US government, which appears to be unable to compel the executive branch to return a man unlawfully deported to El Salvador and imprisoned without charge or trial.

The post California sues President Tariff appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.