United States v. California

The federal district court for the Eastern District of California denied the United States’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of a California law (SB 1137) that prohibits the drilling of new oil and gas wells and the redrilling/deepening of existing wells within 3,200 feet of “sensitive receptors.” The court found that the U.S. did not demonstrate that it was likely to establish that SB 1137 is preempted because it conflicts with the Mineral Leasing Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The court also found that the U.S. did not show that risk of irreparable injury was likely or that the requested injunction would prevent such an injury. The court cited the U.S.’s “substantial delay” in filing the lawsuit and the “speculative” nature of the impact the U.S. claimed SB 1137 would have on oil and gas leasing on federal lands.

The United States filed a lawsuit challenging a California law (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1137/id/2606996">SB 1137</a>) enacted in 2022 that restricts fossil fuel operations within 3,200 feet of certain “sensitive receptors” such as homes, schools, and health care facilities. SB 1137’s legislative findings cited “increasing impacts of climate change” and “a growing body of research” showing “direct health impacts from proximity to oil extraction,” that disproportionately impact communities most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change. The law stated that “[f]urther assistance must be provided to frontline communities that have been most polluted by the fossil fuel industry by cleaning up pollution, remediating negative health impacts, and building resilient infrastructure to prepare for the unavoidable impacts of climate change.” The U.S. asserted that federal law preempted SB 1137’s restrictions because their “categorical prohibition on certain fossil fuel development on federal lands … stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress’s objectives … to promote the responsible development of fossil fuel resources on federal lands,” as reflected in the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and other federal statutes. In addition, the U.S. asserted that the California law conflicted with the Constitution’s Property Clause by interfering with property interests in the federal mineral estate and violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine by directly regulating the federal government.