Supreme Court Grapples With Forum Effects in Enbridge Suit (1)

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday focused questioning on what rights Enbridge Energy LP would lose if its case against Michigan’s effort to block a massive gas pipeline is heard in state rather than federal court.

Enbridge is aiming for the case to be heard in federal court while Michigan says it belongs in state court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor during arguments pointed to the fact that Enbridge’s case would be heard by a court no matter which forum it wound up in.

“None of your remedies, like in some of our other cases, would be lost forever,” she told Enbridge’s representation. “None of your claims or defenses would be lost forever.”

Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline runs about 645 miles to carry oil and gas between Michigan and Canada. 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 out of concern for environmental impacts.

The case is just one of several from tribal organizations and Michigan’s government challenging portions of Line 5. The Supreme Court agreed in June to hear the current case against Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) over proper court venue.

“This case arises from state officials’ attempt to use state court proceedings to shut down an international pipeline that supplies energy to millions in the US and Canada,” said John J. Bursch of Caledonia, Mich., on behalf of Enbridge, at the beginning of the arguments.

“The question is whether federal courts retain their traditional equitable authority to excuse the 30-day removal deadline,” he said. “Under this court’s case law and statutory text, they do.”

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.

Enbridge in its January 2025 high court petition challenged the Sixth Circuit’s finding that the company hadn’t met the 30-day window for removing the suit to federal court and that the deadline was mandatory.

In response to a question from Chief Justice John Roberts about the state and federal dynamics of the case, Bursch reiterated federal courts’ powers.

“What we don’t want is to assume that Congress wanted to handcuff federal courts so that they couldn’t exercise equity,” he said. “You need a clear command or some other really compelling statement to strip federal courts of that.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked more about what Enbridge was arguing.

“In light of what Justice Sotomayor and others have said, really like a statute of limitations, you’re not losing the rights in the same way,” she said. “It seems like we’re just shifting forums here.”

Nessel in her October 2025 brief to the high court argued Congress has always had a deadline for when removal has to be pursued. If the deadline is missed, the case must remain where it began.

“Having missed Congress’ express mandatory 30-day removal deadline by over two years, Enbridge seeks an atextual escape hatch,” said Michigan’s solicitor general, Ann M. Sherman, during oral arguments.

“The presumption of equitable tolling does not apply,” she said, referring to the district court’s ability to excuse the deadline.

“Enbridge’s approach disregards the statute’s text, structure and history—and would inject messy fact-bound questions into a forum selection process that Congress intended to be short and predictable,” Sherman said.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Jackson separately asked about how a statute of limitations should be considered in the case.

Sherman said statutes of limitations only apply if there are “very harsh consequences,” like losing out on the ability to bring a case.

“That’s not true here,” she said. “They’re going to get one forum or another, and maybe they’re not going to get their preferred forum, but they’re going to get a forum to litigate their case.”

The case is Enbridge Energy LP v. Nessel, U.S., No. 24-783, oral arguments held 2/24/26.