The Supreme Court has made a definitive decision regarding the lawsuit involving Enbridge and Michigan’s Line 5 pipeline. In a unanimous ruling, they stated that Enbridge had lost the opportunity to remove the case from state court to federal court.
This case dates back to 2019 when Michigan’s attorney general initiated legal action against Enbridge. She argued that the company’s 1953 easement for Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac was no longer valid, constituting unlawful operation under state law. Enbridge was formally served on July 12, 2019.
Under federal law, there is a 30-day window for defendants sued in state court to file for removal. Unfortunately for Enbridge, they missed this timeframe and elected to continue battling the case in state court for over a year.
In 2020, Michigan’s governor attempted to revoke the easement and filed a separate lawsuit. Enbridge successfully removed this later case to federal court within the required period, temporarily putting the attorney general’s case on hold.
After a federal judgment recognized federal-question jurisdiction in the governor’s case, that lawsuit was dropped. However, Enbridge sought to transfer the attorney general’s case to federal court after a delay of 887 days. The district court allowed this, citing equitable principles, but the Sixth Circuit overturned the decision, sending the case back to state court.
Supreme Court’s Clarification
The Supreme Court examined whether courts could invoke “equitable tolling” to extend the established 30-day removal deadline. Their conclusion was a clear “no.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor articulated that the text and framework of the statute indicate Congress intended to uphold strict limits without allowing for case-by-case extensions. Though the deadline is nonjurisdictional, it remains a mandatory requirement.
The ruling emphasized that Congress has already outlined specific exceptions for such situations. Thus, creating additional equitable exceptions would undermine the established legal framework.
For instance, the law already allows for extensions if a case initially seems unremovable. There are also specific cases that allow enlargement of time limits for valid reasons. The court maintained that broader allowances for tolling would contradict these established criteria.
Ultimately, the court found that Enbridge’s attempt to transfer the case was untimely, necessitating the attorney general’s lawsuit to return to Michigan state court.
Download the FREE Trending Politics App to get the latest news FIRST >>
