Enbridge Loses Bid to Move Pipeline Case to Federal Court (2)

Enbridge Energy LP acted too late to try and move to federal court a lawsuit over its attempt to preserve portions of its Line 5 pipeline, the US Supreme Court said Wednesday.

Justices rejected Enbridge’s argument that the dispute over the 645-mile-long international pipeline, which carries oil and gas between Michigan and Canada, isn’t suited for a state court.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) had argued Enbridge couldn’t move the case to federal court, having missed the 30-day window for removal.

The high court agreed, saying the Sixth Circuit “correctly held that Enbridge’s notice of removal was untimely and that this action must be remanded to the Michigan state court.”

Parties such as Enbridge that are sued in state court have 30 days after receiving notice of the suit to remove it to federal court, the opinion said. However, the company waited 887 days from when Nessel originally filed the lawsuit seeking to stop the pipeline’s operation, the Supreme Court said.

Enbridge filed the motion for removal after Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) in 2020 revoked the easement for a four-mile segment of the project that crossed where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet due to environmental concerns.

There have been several cases from tribal organizations and Michigan’s government challenging portions of Line 5.

The immediate case centered around whether the 30-day timeline for forum removal was met. The US District Court for the Western District of Michigan ruled the 30-day time limit was excused—citing the federal issues already in federal court in a related Enbridge case—but the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, saying Enbridge didn’t qualify for an exception to the 30-day deadline.

“Enbridge’s approach would upset the ‘balance struck by Congress’ in the removal statutes,” the high court said, referring to “Congress’s manifest interest in resolving threshold removal questions early and conclusively.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the unanimous decision.

Enbridge disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision.

“Setting aside the procedural decision, the fact remains that the safety of Line 5 is regulated exclusively by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,” Enbridge said in an emailed statement.

“PHMSA conducts annual inspections and reviews of Line 5’s operations across the Straits of Mackinac and has consistently found the pipeline to be in compliance, identifying no safety issues that would warrant its shutdown,” the company said.

“As the Supreme Court recognized in its decision today, a federal court has already concluded that the Governor’s efforts to shut down Line 5 were preempted by this federal regulatory scheme,” Enbridge added, saying it’s “committed to the safe operation of Line 5 and to working constructively with regulators and stakeholders.”

Other groups praised the high court’s finding.

“This decision reinforces that corporations cannot evade state environmental enforcement suits by waiting, testing the waters in one forum, and then trying for a friendlier court later,” Caroline Flynn of Earthjustice said in an emailed statement. “The ruling will help Michigan continue its state-law case, in the forum it chose, to address a deteriorating Canadian oil pipeline before disaster strikes in the heart of the Great Lakes.”

“Today’s decision honors the truth that the Straits of Mackinac are not a bargaining chip and reaffirms what Tribal Nations have always known—we have the right and the responsibility to protect the Great Lakes,” said Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community in Michigan.

“The Supreme Court saw through Enbridge’s delay tactics and upheld the rule of law,” she said in an emailed statement.

John J. Bursch of Caledonia, Mich., argued the case for Enbridge. Steptoe LLP and Dickinson Wright PLLC also represented Enbridge in Supreme Court briefs.

Nessel is represented by Michigan’s solicitor general.

The case is Enbridge Energy LP v. Nessel, U.S., No. 24-783, 4/22/26.