News Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to examine the legality of Enbridge Energy’s attempt to move a lawsuit from state to federal court regarding its Line 5 oil pipeline. Michigan argues that jurisdiction should remain at the state level, while Enbridge claims federal courts would offer a more favorable outcome. The case has significant implications for local environmental regulations and the future of the aging pipeline, which has faced increasing scrutiny for its potential environmental risks.

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court is set to review a pivotal case that could determine whether Enbridge Energy’s lawsuit removal from state court to federal court is justified. This case centers on Michigan’s lawsuit against Enbridge regarding its Line 5 oil pipeline, which traverses the Straits of Mackinac.

The Supreme Court has officially included the matter among its cases to be examined over the next few months. At stake is the future operational jurisdiction of the Line 5 pipeline, crucial to the Great Lakes region.

Enbridge’s push to shift the case, originally filed by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in 2019, to federal court stems from the company’s belief that it would receive a more favorable outcome. However, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Enbridge exceeded the 30-day window required for such a move, thus keeping the case within Michigan’s state court system. The Sixth Circuit judges emphasized that the removal request was inadmissibly late and should not be entertained.

Legal representatives for Enbridge have contested the appellate court’s decision, claiming it conflicts with other rulings from appellate courts that allow for exceptions concerning the removal deadline. They assert that a 2021 ruling by U.S. District Judge Janet Neff in a related case offers new grounds for their case’s timely removal to federal jurisdiction.

Michigan’s position, backed by Nessel’s office, maintains that the lawsuit should remain in state courts as it is fundamentally rooted in state law. This legal conflict over jurisdiction may cause substantial disruptions in current proceedings within the Ingham County Circuit Court, where Judge James Jamo has yet to make decisions regarding ongoing motions in the case.

The implications of this case stretch beyond court proceedings. Line 5 has been operational for 72 years, yet it faces growing scrutiny due to environmental risks, particularly the possibility of oil spills into the Great Lakes. Nessel’s lawsuit aims to address these concerns and advocate for the pipeline’s removal. Additionally, Governor Gretchen Whitmer filed her own lawsuit in 2020 seeking to revoke the easement granted to Enbridge for the pipeline’s operation.

Enbridge insists that, under the Pipeline Safety Act and various treaties, jurisdiction over pipeline laws falls under federal authorities. In contrast, Michigan argues that the case should correctly be governed by local regulations, emphasizing state interests in environmental safety and public welfare.

The situation is further complicated by Enbridge’s proposed $500 million project to replace Line 5 with a new tunnel. However, this initiative currently faces delays related to permit approvals. Comments regarding the environmental repercussions of the proposed tunnel are being solicited by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with public meetings scheduled to explore the findings through June 30.

A ruling from the Supreme Court on this case could have significant ramifications for both Enbridge’s operations and Michigan’s regulatory authority over environmental concerns. The forthcoming decision is poised to impact not only the legal landscape surrounding the pipeline but also the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes region.