News Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court will review Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s lawsuit against Enbridge Energy concerning the Line 5 pipeline. The case revolves around whether state or federal jurisdiction applies to the pipeline that runs beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Initially filed in June 2019, the lawsuit seeks to void an easement granted to Enbridge. The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for energy infrastructure and environmental safety in the region.

Lansing, Michigan – The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the venue dispute concerning Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s lawsuit against Enbridge Energy Company regarding the Line 5 pipeline, which runs beneath the Straits of Mackinac. The pipeline is a critical conduit for transporting crude oil and natural gas liquids between Wisconsin and Ontario.

The lawsuit, filed in June 2019, seeks to void an easement originally granted to Enbridge for the operation of a 4.5-mile segment of pipeline under the straits that connect Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Nessel secured a restraining order in June 2020 from Ingham County Judge James Jamo, temporarily shutting down the pipeline, though Enbridge was permitted to continue operations under safety measures.

In 2021, Enbridge transferred the case to federal court, arguing the matter relates to cross-border trade between the U.S. and Canada. However, in June 2024, a three-judge panel from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to return the case to state jurisdiction due to Enbridge’s failure to meet a 30-day deadline for changing jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case was announced without any accompanying rationale. Officials from Enbridge expressed optimism about the Supreme Court’s involvement, citing exceptions to the 30-day jurisdiction change deadline as a potential factor in their favor.

From the perspective of state officials, Attorney General Nessel’s spokesperson emphasized that the lawsuit must remain in Michigan courts, invoking the public trust doctrine which maintains that natural resources are public property.

Background Context on Line 5

The Line 5 pipeline has been in operation since 1953, transporting energy resources crucial for various economic activities in the region. Over the years, concerns regarding the pipeline’s integrity have escalated, particularly after Enbridge admitted in 2017 to being aware of protective coating gaps on the pipeline since 2014. These concerns were compounded by an incident in 2018 when a boat anchor damaged the underwater pipeline section, raising alarms about a possible catastrophic spill.

The state of Michigan, under Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s administration, took significant action in 2020 to address safety concerns, leading to the revocation of the pipeline’s easement for the straits. In response, Enbridge initiated a separate federal lawsuit challenging this revocation.

In its ongoing effort to improve the safety of the Line 5 pipeline, Enbridge is currently seeking permits to construct a protective tunnel around the pipeline section that lies beneath the straits. The Michigan Public Service Commission granted relevant permits for this project in 2023, although further approvals are still needed from both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy.

Wider Legal Implications

The legal complexities surrounding Line 5 extend beyond Michigan. There is also an ongoing dispute in Wisconsin, where a federal judge has ordered Enbridge to shut down a segment of the pipeline running through the Bad River Band of Lake Superior’s reservation. Enbridge has proposed rerouting the pipeline around the reservation as part of its response and has filed an appeal against the shutdown order.

The Supreme Court’s upcoming review is expected to play a critical role in determining how jurisdictional issues will be resolved and may also have broader implications on energy infrastructure and environmental safety measures across state lines.

As the legal proceedings continue, the situation surrounding the Line 5 pipeline remains a focal point of environmental, economic, and legal discussions within Michigan and beyond.