Historic Ruling Keeps Line 5 Pipeline Case in State Court

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Enbridge Energy missed its 30-day deadline to move a lawsuit about its Line 5 pipeline from state court to federal court, clearing the way for Michigan state judges to hear arguments about the aging oil pipeline beneath the Straits of Mackinac.

The decision, announced on Wednesday, April 22, may revive a 7-year-old case that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel brought in Ingham County to block Enbridge from using Line 5, a 645-mile-long oil and natural gas pipeline system that runs from Wisconsin through Michigan and into Canada.

Enbridge Energy had argued that a legal concept known as equitable tolling applied, allowing for a delay in moving the case to federal court. The company cited the international treaty with Canada and other issues it said were better suited for federal jurisdiction.

"It's not suffering for a state to have to litigate in federal court," said John Bursch, a Grand Rapids lawyer and former Michigan solicitor general who represented Enbridge before the Supreme Court during arguments in February.

But state officials argued the issue belonged in state court. A Michigan judge might be better attuned to the state's interests in environmental protection, recreation and the state's economy, according to the American Bar Association.

Nessel's office argued before the court that there was no valid reason for Enbridge to be allowed to blow past the 30-day delay.

"Congress never intended to give parties so much leeway in transferring cases," said Ann Sherman, Nessel's solicitor general, during February arguments. "This is not an area where Congress said federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the unanimous court that Enbridge could not identify any sensible reason why Congress would have adopted express exceptions for removing civil cases if equitable tolling was already available for belated removals.

"Allowing equitable tolling of the deadline would undermine Congress's manifest interest in resolving threshold removal questions early and conclusively," Sotomayor wrote. "Under the rule the court adopts today, plaintiffs that sue in state court usually can be confident that, after the deadline has elapsed, the forum question has been put to rest and the case will proceed in the chosen court."

The ruling does not immediately settle any of the specific legal issues regarding the use of the pipelines. The state court will still have to decide whether Enbridge operates Line 5 in violation of state law and whether the 1953 easement granted to the state should be voided.

Nessel said the ruling makes it clear that her lawsuit against Enbridge belongs before the state court, where she has argued since 2019 that Line 5 does not have a legal right to the Straits bottomlands.

"For far too long, following years of Enbridge's delay tactics, the fear of a catastrophic spill from Line 5 has haunted our state, threatening to turn our most vital natural resource into a manmade disaster," Nessel said in a news release.

The ruling was cheered by officials with the Oil and Water Dont Mix Campaign, a coalition of environmental groups working to close down Line 5 through the Straits.

"This is a clear and pivotal win generated by the movement to shut down Line 5," said Sean McBrearty, the campaign's coordinator. "Now, this case will head back to state court, where it belongs."

Enbridge spokesman Ryan Duffy said the decision aside, Line 5 remains regulated by the federal government, which conducts annual inspections and has identified no safety issues that would warrant its shutdown.

"Dangerous pipeline continues to operate under Great Lakes"

Concerns over the section beneath the straits rupturing and causing a catastrophic spill have been growing since 2017, when Enbridge engineers revealed they had known about gaps in the section's protective coating since 2014. A boat anchor damaged the section in 2018, intensifying fears of a spill.

Enbridge is also seeking permits to encase the pipeline section beneath the straits in a protective tunnel. The Michigan Public Service Commission granted the relevant permits in 2023, but a coalition of environmental groups and Michigan tribes has filed a lawsuit seeking to void state permits for the tunnel.

The Michigan Supreme Court is weighing that case.

Enbridge also needs approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy.

For tribal leaders, the concerns go far beyond infrastructure. Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community, said the pipeline threatens treaty rights and the natural resources communities rely on every day.

"Line 5 is not just about an oil pipeline, it's really about our desire to continue to protect our way of life," Gravelle said. "It would destroy an entire way of life."

The pipeline is at the center of a separate legal dispute in Wisconsin as well. A federal judge in Madison last summer gave Enbridge three years to shut down part of Line 5 that runs across the Bad River Band of Lake Superior's reservation. The company has appealed the shutdown order to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but it started work in February to reroute the line around the reservation.

The Bad River and environmental groups have filed a state lawsuit seeking to halt the work, arguing regulators have underestimated the damage the reroute construction will cause. That case is also pending.

A federal court has already concluded that the Governor's efforts to shut down Line 5 were preempted by this federal regulatory scheme. In light of that ruling, the Attorney General's state-court case has been stayed by stipulation of the parties pending the outcome of the Governor's appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Enbridge is committed to the safe operation of Line 5 and to working constructively with regulators and stakeholders, according to a company statement.

The case is part of a messy legal dispute about a pipeline that has moved crude oil and natural gas liquids between Superior, Wisconsin, and Sarnia, Ontario, since 1953.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sued in state court in June 2019 seeking to void the easement that allows Enbridge to operate a 4.5-mile section of pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, which link Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Nessel, a Democrat, won a restraining order shutting down the pipeline from Ingham County Judge James Jamo in June 2020, although Enbridge was allowed to continue operations after meeting safety requirements.

Enbridge moved the lawsuit into federal court in 2021, arguing it affects U.S. and Canadian trade. But a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to Jamo in June 2024, finding that the company missed a 30-day deadline to change its jurisdiction.

A federal court has already concluded that the Governor's efforts to shut down Line 5 were preempted by this federal regulatory scheme. In light of that ruling, the Attorney General's state-court case has been stayed by stipulation of the parties pending the outcome of the Governor's appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The ruling was also cheered by officials with the Oil and Water Dont Mix Campaign, a coalition of several environmental groups working to close down Line 5 through the Straits.

"This is a clear and pivotal win generated by the movement to shut down Line 5," said Sean McBrearty, the campaign's coordinator. "Now, this case will head back to state court, where it belongs."

But Enbridge disagrees. In a statement, the company said the safety of Line 5 is regulated exclusively by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation.

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, according to Enbridge.

The case involves multiple parties with different perspectives on the future of the pipeline. Environmental groups argue that Line 5 poses an unacceptable risk to the Great Lakes, while the company maintains that it is safe and properly regulated.

The state court will now have to decide whether Enbridge operates Line 5 in violation of state law and whether the 1953 easement should be voided. The case could take months or even years to resolve, depending on how quickly the court moves to hear arguments on the merits of the case.

For now, the procedural win for the state means that Michigan residents will have a say in the future of Line 5 through their state courts rather than through federal courts.