- The US Supreme Court has sided with Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a dispute over ongoing Line 5 shutdown litigation
- Nessel filed the shutdown suit in state court, but Enbridge had sought to remove it to federal court
- In a unanimous decision, justices ruled Enbridge’s arguments for doing so were ‘not persuasive’
The US Supreme Court has unanimously sided with Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a dispute over which court — state or federal — should oversee Nessel’s lawsuit to shut down the Line 5 pipeline.
The court’s nine justices ruled that Enbridge cannot move the state court case Nessel filed seven years ago to federal court, because the company missed a 30-day deadline to do so.
Jurisdiction matters because federal courts are considered more likely to sympathize with Enbridge’s argument that the pipeline should stay open, while state courts are more likely to sympathize with Nessel’s argument that it should close.
The ruling is the latest development in a yearslong dispute over the fate of the 72-year-old oil pipeline owned by Canadian oil giant Enbridge Energy, which crosses through the open water of the Straits of Mackinac as it transports petroleum products from Wisconsin to Ontario.
The aging pipeline has sustained damage multiple times in recent years, sparking fears that it could rupture and cause an oil spill in the Great Lakes.
Related:
- Enbridge, Line 5 foes argue tunnel plan before Michigan Supreme Court
- Feds take another step toward decision on Line 5 tunnel
- Line 5 tunnel option ‘rushed’ and unsafe, opponents say
- Federal judge: Michigan has no authority to shut down Line 5
Citing those fears, Nessel in 2019 filed a lawsuit in the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County seeking to shut down the pipeline’s lakebottom segment. But two years into deliberations, Enbridge attempted to move the case into federal court — missing a 30-day statutory deadline to do so.
In a dispute that made its way to the nation’s highest court, the company argued it qualified for an exception to the deadline, while state lawyers accused the company of seeking “an atextual escape hatch.”
In an opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the justices concluded that Congress authorized limited exceptions to the 30-day deadline, none of which apply to the circumstances of this case.
“Enbridge’s counterarguments are not persuasive,” Sotomayor wrote.
The procedural ruling doesn’t settle the question of the pipeline’s fate. But it remands the case back to Ingham County, where deliberations are paused pending the outcome of a separate case.
A spokesperson for Nessel did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy expressed confidence that the company will prevail in arguing that the line should remain open.
“The fact remains that the safety of Line 5 is regulated exclusively by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,” Duffy wrote. That agency is part of the US Department of Transportation.
In a ruling tied to a separate shutdown dispute between Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Enbridge, US District Court Judge Robert Jonker ruled in December that federal pipeline safety laws preempt state laws, leaving Michigan with no “power to interfere” in Line 5 operations. The state is appealing the decision and Nessel’s state court case is paused pending the outcome of that appeal.
Prolonged battle
For years, fans and foes of the pipeline have been battling in Michigan and Wisconsin over fears that the pipeline could cause a catastrophic oil spill. Enbridge also owns the line 6B pipeline, which spilled into the Kalamazoo River causing among the worst inland oil spills in US history. Line 5 has been repeatedly struck by ships’ anchors, further heightening pipeline safety concerns.
In 2018, Enbridge pitched a plan to move the Straits section of the pipeline into a concrete-lined tunnel deep beneath the lakebed to alleviate spill concerns. But that plan, too, has been controversial, with some contending the best solution is to remove the pipeline entirely.
It’s a debate that revolves not only around spill risks, but concerns about land disturbances from tunnel construction, infringement on Native American treaty rights in the Straits and the climate implications of building infrastructure that would lock in decades of additional fossil fuel use.
The US Army Corps of Engineers and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy are both preparing to issue key permitting decisions tied to the tunnel plan.
Meanwhile, the Michigan Supreme Court is deliberating over a lawsuit challenging a separate tunnel permit the state already granted.
Thank you to our Michigan Environment Watch sponsors
Bridge Michigan Environment Watch is made possible by generous financial support from our sponsors. Sponsorship supports our independent journalism mission but does not constitute sponsor endorsement of individual articles or editorial content. Bridge Michigan journalism remains fact- and data-driven and independent at all times.
Please visit the About page for more information and to subscribe to Environment Watch. Interested in becoming a sponsor? Contact Emma Carr.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com
