In a major escalation of policy tensions between Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block California’s landmark oil drilling setback law — Senate Bill 1137 — thrusting the state’s climate and public health protections into a constitutional spotlight. The case underscores a broader battle over the future of energy policy, environmental safeguards, and the scope of state regulatory authority.
A Law Born From Health And Environmental Concerns
Passed in 2022 and fully enforced since 2024, Senate Bill 1137 prohibits new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of sensitive community spaces — including homes, schools, hospitals, parks, and community centers — and imposes stricter health and safety standards on existing wells. The legislation was the culmination of years of advocacy by environmental justice groups, public health researchers, and frontline communities impacted by decades of drilling adjacent to everyday life.
“SB 1137 creates a science-based buffer zone so kids can go to school, families can live in their homes, and communities can exist without breathing toxic fumes that cause asthma, birth defects, and cancer,” said Anthony Martinez, spokesman for California Governor Gavin Newsom, defending the statute’s public health rationale.
Justice Department Pushes Back
In its complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, the DOJ argues that federal law — including the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act — preempts California’s statute. The administration claims that the state’s buffer rules would effectively “knock out about one-third of all federally authorized oil and gas leases in California,” interfering with national energy policy and undermining federal authority over public lands.
Calling the law unconstitutional and a barrier to domestic energy development, the DOJ is seeking a court ruling to prevent SB 1137’s enforcement. In a statement, Attorney General Pam Bondi framed the lawsuit as part of a broader federal effort to challenge what the administration deems excessive state regulations:
“This is yet another unconstitutional and radical policy … that threatens our country’s energy independence and makes energy more expensive for the American people.”
California’s Response: Framing a Fight for Communities
California’s leadership and environmental advocates have sharply condemned the federal action. They argue that protecting public health from the well-documented harms of nearby oil and gas operations — such as pollution linked to respiratory diseases and other serious health outcomes — is a legitimate exercise of state power.
“Attempting to block the law that protects the air we breathe and the water we drink from oil industry pollution is the Trump administration’s latest attack on our state,” said Kassie Siegel, Director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Big Oil backed down from their deceitful referendum campaign because Californians wouldn’t stand for it… I’m confident this historic law will stand.”
Environmental justice leaders, notably in Kern County and Los Angeles communities, echoed this sentiment, describing SB 1137 as a “commonsense public health law” and criticizing the federal suit as favoring industry interests over the well-being of residents. Their statements highlighted long histories of disproportionate pollution burdens among low-income and majority-minority neighborhoods.
The Broader Stakes: Policy, Politics, And Precedent
The litigation marks a symbolic and practical clash on multiple fronts:
- State vs. Federal Authority: At its core, the lawsuit tests how far California can go in implementing environmental and public health protections that intersect with federally controlled land and energy resources.
- Energy And Climate Policy: The federal challenge arrives amid ongoing national debates about fossil fuel reliance, energy independence, and climate change mitigation — arenas where California has frequently pushed more aggressive standards than Washington.
- Public Health And Environmental Justice: For supporters of SB 1137, the setback law represents a victory for communities long exposed to air and water pollution — now threatened by what they view as a federal rollback.
As the case unfolds, both sides are set on shaping not just legal precedent but the practical landscape of who decides environmental and energy policy in the United States — a question whose answer may ripple far beyond California’s borders.
