SpaceX vs. California: The Fight Over Political Persecution
This week, a judge ruled that SpaceX – Elon Musk’s rocket company – can sue a California state agency for political discrimination.[1] Earlier in the year, a similar lawsuit was struck down by the court, so this is a big deal for SpaceX and Musk! What happened, what could this lawsuit mean for California regulators, and why does this matter for us?
Why Does This Story Matter?
SpaceX is alleging that California officials targeted the company because of Elon Musk’s political views. That’s a serious accusation. If government agencies can use environmental regulations to punish businesses for their owner’s political views, no one is safe from politicized retaliation.
This case isn’t just about Elon Musk—it’s about protecting free speech, fair governance, and the rule of law for every American. It’s also about holding our state government accountable to their actions. California shouldn’t be allowed to bully people based on their political views. Plus, for conservatives who prioritize limited government and clear constitutional boundaries, this is a classic case of state-level overreach.
I think then that it’s important for us to understand what is going on here. Is California violating the first amendment and practicing discrimination on the basis of personal beliefs, or does Elon Musk just have a vendetta against the state that used to be his Tesla homebase previously?
SpaceX vs. California Coastal Commission
So, exactly what happened? Let’s go through a timeline of events.
All the way back in 2013, SpaceX started using Vandenberg Space Force Base as a launch point for their Falcon 9 launches.[2] Vandenberg is in Lompoc, California, which is a little over an hour north of Santa Barbara in southern California, and SpaceX was able to utilize a lot of the existing infrastructure on the base, which is why it’s an important spot for them.
From their first launch until 2023, SpaceX gradually increased the number of launches they were doing. It’s important for us to understand that these launches are the core of SpaceX’s business model, and so increasing how often they do them is essential to their strategic, financial, and national priorities.
For example, you may have heard of Starlink, which is their satellite network. Well for Starlink to work, they need thousands of satellites in orbit. Every time SpaceX performs a launch, they can carry an average of 60 satellites,[3] so if they need thousands, then it makes sense they need to prioritize ramping up their launch capabilities. SpaceX also provides launch services for our government’s space force, air force, and other intelligence agencies. Any delays or disruptions in being able to carry out these launches could disrupt national defense strategies.[4]
All of that to say, these launches are important to SpaceX, and so restricting launches directly threatens their entire operational model.
In 2024, SpaceX set the goal to increase their launches from Vandenberg from 36 in the prior year, to 50 launches.[5] This is where they started to run into problems. The California Coastal Commission stepped in and insisted that SpaceX needed a coastal development permit to increase their launch activity, even though Vandenberg was located on federal land. They argued that they had received a series of complaints about “impacts to wildlife, noise disturbances, marine debris, and public notifications.”[6] The Commission also questioned whether all the launches at Vandenberg could really be considered federal activity.
On top of the permit, they also required SpaceX to conduct a bunch of environmental impact studies. Now, I am all for making sure that SpaceX’s activities aren’t severely disrupting residents who live in the area, or the wildlife around the base – that’s fine. But when you listen to the descriptions of some of the studies they were required to perform, it becomes clear that they are not covering basic, commonsense concerns, but rather outlandish requests like the likelihood of hitting sharks or whales, or causing animals hearing damage.[7] It is completely ridiculous to require such studies at great cost and hindrance to a business being able to carry out innovation and its basic operational activities.
Political Bias?
But all of that was to be expected from the California government – so what is the crux of the issue? In October of 2024, the California Coastal Commission held a hearing where they rejected SpaceX’s plans to ramp up launch activities, but as they rejected the plans, they did so while referring to many of Elon Musk’s posts on X and his political views.
Just look at a few quotes of actual things that members of the commission said in the hearing:
“Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] while claiming his desire to help hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,”
“We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” and
“This company is owned by the richest person in the world with direct control of what could be the most expansive communications system in the planet. Just last week that person was talking about political retribution.” [8]
Now, what do these things – Elon’s involvement in President Trump’s campaign, his success and wealth accumulated from his multiple businesses, and his political beliefs as shared on X – what do those things have to do with whether or not a business – SpaceX – should be able to increase from 36 to 50 launches in the year? The answer is that those things should have nothing to do with the California Coastal Commission’s verdict on the matter, but they do work to expose bias in members of the commission who don’t like Elon Musk and who want to hinder his companies’ ability to operate.
SpaceX Allowed to File Suit
Why is all of this coming up now? Why is this back in the news?
Earlier this week, a judge ruled that Musk’s lawsuit has basis and is allowed to go forward. U.S. District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld published the ruling saying that “SpaceX had presented enough information for now to support its claims that the California Coastal Commission was singling out the company for greater regulatory scrutiny.”[9]
Now, the jury is still out on how the case will go. The court could still find that the California Coastal Commission was justified, and Musk could lose this case. But, I think this sets a precedent that is too important to gloss over or miss.
The California Coastal Commission is a state agency, and whether or not they have legitimate reasons for requiring a permit of SpaceX, their members still brought Musk’s political affiliations and actions to the discussion when it came to deciding whether or not to enforce the regulations. That is concerning! That should concern all of us.
The California Coastal Commission is a state agency, which means it is funded by your tax dollars and is supposed to serve the public interest — not play politics. Bringing up Elon Musk’s political beliefs is a red flag. Why? Because the truth is that when state officials start using their power to punish or pressure people based on politics, it doesn’t stop with billionaires or rocket companies. If a state agency can openly target someone like Musk simply because they don’t like his speech or political donations, what’s to stop them from doing the same to a small business owner, a nonprofit, or even a church that holds an unpopular view?
This case isn’t just about rockets or environmental rules — it’s about whether Californians still live in a state governed by law and process, or by personal bias and political grudges. We cannot live in that kind of world!
Political Persecution Reality in California
Now, I know this can sound, dramatic, and I’m not trying to fearmonger you, but we need to open our eyes to the reality that we’ve actually seen this same behavior before:
Just this year, in Santa Ana, a small church was denied the right to meet in a commercial building — even though secular groups were allowed to do the exact same thing. The federal government had to step in and remind California that religious freedom is not optional.[10]
Also this year, in Los Angeles County, officials tried to ban a local church from holding worship services on the beach — after 18 years of peaceful gatherings. They allowed concerts and surf events, but told the church it wasn’t welcome.[11]
And even small businesses have faced this. A California baker was dragged through court for declining to create a custom wedding cake due to her religious beliefs — even though she served the customers and offered other products. An appellate court recently rules against her and she’s trying to appeal her case to the Supreme Court, since California courts have proven to be just so biased against Christians.[12]
It doesn’t stop at these examples. California’s environmental law (CEQA) is often used to block small developments — not because of real ecological concerns, but because someone doesn’t like the project, the politics, or the person behind it.
This is the pattern: agencies that were created to protect the public are being used to punish the noncompliant — not lawbreakers, just people with the wrong opinions. But often we don’t hear much about these cases because they affect normal, everyday people. They affect people like you and me. These regulatory bodies are allowed to bully Californians without awareness or pushback from the public.
So, SpaceX’s lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission is incredibly important for us to follow and be informed about. Because this case is a warning shot, and even more than that, it’s representation for all the small business owners and conservative organizations across the state who have had to fight California’s regulations alone.
Let’s not forget that these regulators are appointed by elected officials who we vote for – which means we DO have the power to make change in this area, but we must stay informed and aware of what our elected officials are doing, and we must remember when it comes time to cast our ballots in the next election. And, we can’t become lazy or complacent in fighting against authoritarianism – we have to support the companies and individuals who are fighting for their rights in our state.
The fight over SpaceX is ultimately a fight for fairness, free speech, and the rule of law in California. And that should matter to all of us.
References:
[1] Scarcella, Mike. “Musk’s SpaceX Can Pursue Retaliation Lawsuit Against California Agency, Judge Rules.” Reuters, July 7, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/musks-spacex-can-pursue-retaliation-lawsuit-against-california-agency-judge-2025-07-07/
[2] Vandenberg Space Force Base. “Vandenberg Launches SpaceX Rocket,” September 29, 2013. https://www.vandenberg.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/737085/vandenberg-launches-spacex-rocket/.
[3] Pultarova, Tereza, Adam Mann, and Daisy Dobrijevic. “Starlink Satellites: Facts, Tracking and Impact on Astronomy.” Space, June 26, 2025. https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html.
[4] “The Space Review: What Future for SpaceX?,” June 2, 2025. https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4997/1#:~:text=SpaceX%20sometimes%20conducts%20three%20launches,to%20orbit%20the%20Starlink%20fleet.
[5] LeRoi, Joshua. “VSFB Achieves Historic Milestone With 51 Launches in 2024.” Vandenberg Space Force Base, January 21, 2025. https://www.vandenberg.spaceforce.mil/news/article-display/article/4034711/vsfb-achieves-historic-milestone-with-51-launches-in-2024/.
[6] Leonard, Isabella. “California Coastal Commission Hesitant to Support Increase on SpaceX Launches.” The Santa Barbara Independent, April 16, 2024. https://www.independent.com/2024/04/16/california-coastal-commission-hesitant-to-support-increase-on-spacex-launches/.
[7] YouTube. “Elon Musk on How Over Regulation Impacted SpaceX,” n.d. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dkG-UbOBX6M.
[8] Hernandez, Salvador. “California Officials Reject More SpaceX Rocket Launches - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2024. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-10-11/la-me-spacex-coastal-commission#:~:text=California%20officials%20reject%20more%20SpaceX%20rocket%20launches%2C%20with%20some%20citing,SpaceX%2C%20before%20rejecting%20the%20plan.
[9] Scarcella, “Musk’s SpaceX Can Pursue Retaliation Lawsuit Against California Agency, Judge Rules.”
[10] Canterberry, Lauren. “Church Says California Zoning Law Infringes on Religious Liberty.” WORLD, April 1, 2025. https://wng.org/sift/church-says-california-zoning-law-infringes-on-religious-liberty-1743461672#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20history%20of,fight%20to%20use%20its%20property.
[11] Burroughs, Dillon. “California’s Hypocrisy: Faith Under Attack in Public Life.” Standing for Freedom Center, June 10, 2025. https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2025/03/20/californias-double-standards-and-the-latest-move-to-ban-faith-from-the-public-sphere/#:~:text=California's%20Hypocrisy%3A%20Faith%20Under%20Attack%20in%20Public%20Life&text=Los%20Angeles%20County%20has%20prohibited,to%20silence%20the%20Christian%20faith.
[12] Kuang, Jeanne. “California Court Rules Against Baker in Revival of Same-sex Wedding Cake Disputes.” CalMatters, February 13, 2025. https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/02/california-civil-rights-cake/.
