Defense Production Act faces test in Sable Offshore bid

OLC: DPA order could preempt California laws to restart Sable Offshore Corp.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluded in a March 3, 2026 memorandum that a presidential order under the Defense Production Act (DPA) could preempt certain California laws to enable Sable Offshore Corp. to resume operations at the Santa Ynez Unit and associated pipelines, as reported by Pipeline & Gas Journal (https://pgjonline.com/news/2026/march/doj-opinion-says-trump-could-override-california-laws-to-restart-oil-pipeline?utm_source=openai). The opinion frames DPA directives as carrying the force of federal law and, under the Supremacy Clause, capable of displacing conflicting state requirements.

The memo outlines two pathways, express preemption spelled out in the order itself and conflict preemption where state rules impede compliance with a federal directive. It emphasizes that the scope would turn on the order’s text, the facilities it covers, and whether simultaneous compliance with state and federal requirements is impossible.

California regulators have previously blocked a restart over environmental, safety, and legal concerns, as reported by Bloomberg Law (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/trump-to-invoke-emergency-law-for-offshore-oil-producer-sable?utm_source=openai). Those hurdles are central to the OLC analysis because they define what a DPA order would need to override.

Why it matters: OLC memo, DPA preemption, Santa Ynez operations

For Sable Offshore, an operative DPA order could functionally reopen access to offshore platforms and the onshore transport network at Santa Ynez by displacing specific permitting or operational constraints. Any such step would remain subject to judicial review, and the OLC acknowledges limits tied to existing statutes and consent decrees.

State leaders have signaled litigation aimed at defending California’s regulatory prerogatives, according to AP News (https://apnews.com/article/cbf79cac5dcdd7d2a720281246e52b09?utm_source=openai). That posture suggests any order could face immediate challenges seeking temporary restraining or preliminary relief in federal court.

Environmental advocates warn that bypassing state processes could elevate safety and spill risks tied to aging infrastructure. “Even in these unprecedented times, this abuse of executive power would be staggering. … Restarting this defective pipeline without following any state or federal safety laws would directly threaten our environment, our economic security, and the health and safety of Californians,” said Linda Krop, Chief Counsel at the Environmental Defense Center, in remarks reported by KEYT (https://keyt.com/news/santa-barbara-s-county/2026/03/05/trump-administration-opinion-cites-national-security-as-justification-to-waive-federal-state-and-local-laws-slowing-oil-production-restart/?utm_source=openai).

How DPA preemption could work: express versus conflict preemption

Express preemption would occur if the presidential order specified that identified California statutes or regulations do not apply to covered activities or facilities. The OLC memo indicates this approach would rely on clear textual directives and a stated national defense purpose under the DPA.

Conflict preemption would arise where state law stands as an obstacle to executing a DPA directive or makes dual compliance impossible. The opinion notes that courts could still test whether the asserted conflicts are real and whether Congress authorized preemption at the claimed breadth.

In practice, a tailored order could name the Santa Ynez Unit, define critical operations, such as production, transport, and maintenance, and specify the categories of state approvals it displaces. It would not automatically waive all laws, and any mismatch with consent decrees or federal statutes could narrow or invalidate portions of the order on review.