Supreme Court justices weigh if Michigan attorney general’s Line 5 case should stay in state court

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments on behalf of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Enbridge Energy over whether the state’s lawsuit to shut down the Line 5 pipeline should be heard in state or federal court.

Is it in question? Whether there are exceptions to the 30-day time limit for removing a matter from state court for hearing in federal court.

Nessel first sued the Canadian Pipeline company in 2019, but the case has not yet been resolved as years of legal maneuvering moved the matter from provincial court to federal court.

in 2024 Nessel successfully defended It was stated that Enbridge exceeded the 30-day time limit to take the case to federal court, and the company filed its request after more than a year of litigation. But Enbridge US argues district courts can excuse time limitIt is left to the Court to determine whether they have this authority.

Following Enbridge attorney John Bursch’s allegations, Judge Clarence Thomas questioned why this case was not moved to federal court like a similar case filed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer: voluntarily dismissing the case.

Although the cases are similar, Bursch said Canadian government invoked a 1977 agreement In Whitmer’s case involving international pipelines, a federal judge was weighing whether the matter should be heard in state or federal court.

Although it was initially unclear whether Nessel’s initial case fell within federal jurisdiction, the governor’s decision to end Enbridge’s right to operate Line 5 in the lower Great Lakes and Canada’s invocation of the agreement changed the landscape.

After Whitmer’s lawsuit was dismissed and Nessel announced it would pursue litigation at the state level, Bursch said the company filed notice to remove the case to federal court within 15 days.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked what rights Enbridge lost by hearing the matter in state court instead of federal court.

“You have the right to compensation for a loss or potential loss, and the forum in which that right is adjudicated has not been lost,” Sotomayor said. “You have a forum, you have state court. None of your remedies are lost forever, as in some of our other cases. None of your claims or defenses are lost forever.”

In response, Bursch pointed to two other Supreme Court cases in which parties had forfeited the right to a specific legal mechanism to enforce their claims, arguing that they had lost the right to have the case dismissed under similar circumstances.

Later in the hearing, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Bursch why Enbridge wanted the matter heard in federal court.

Bursch explained there are four reasons for this. First, he argued that it was valuable for a case to be heard in a forum that respected federal authority. Second, Bursch said, federal courts have unique authority to decide federal common law and foreign relations matters.

Bursch said Enbridge also wants to have the option of having the Supreme Court weigh in if a decision to shut down the pipeline is approved, and it has a separate lawsuit against the governor in federal court, Bursch said.

Gorsuch probed further, asking whether Enbridge thought it could get a fair trial in state court.

Bursch said state courts probably don’t deal much with federal common law in foreign affairs, while Gorsuch said the issue doesn’t come up often in federal district court either.

Gorsuch posed a similar question to Michigan Attorney General Ann Sherman, asking whether there was a reason the plaintiff would prefer to have the matter resolved in state court.

The lawsuit was filed by a state official addressing state law concerns about whether Enbridge violated the state’s public trust doctrine, which holds that the state has a duty to manage natural resources for the public good, Sherman said.

Sherman said Congress gave legal parties the forum option, while plaintiff Nessel was given the first forum option. Sherman also said Congress gave the defense the opportunity to choose a federal forum and argued that Enbridge should respond in a timely manner if it thinks the matter should be heard in federal court.

He also argued that Congress did not give federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over foreign relations matters, and that the state court could be relied upon to take up the matter before the Supreme Court, even if the scope of the case went beyond state law and involved treaty issues.

Judge Sotomayor of a federal court recently ruled in Enbridge’s favorIt determined that federal law prohibits the state from terminating Enbridge’s Line 5 easement. If the Supreme Court upholds the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, leaving Nessel’s case to state court, lawsuits regarding Line 5 will be filed in both state and federal court, he said.

“Are you prepared to commit that if you win here, you will ask the state court to stay pending the resolution of the federal case?” Sotomayor asked.

While it wasn’t something he discussed with Nessel, Sherman said it was definitely a strategic decision they could discuss.

Line 5 is a 645-mile pipeline that runs from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario, transporting up to 23 million gallons of crude oil and natural gas liquids each day. A four-mile dual pipeline section passes through the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet.

Michigan’s 12 federally recognized Tribal Nations and a number of environmental advocacy groups have called for the more than 70-year-old pipeline to be decommissioned, raising concerns about the oil spill that deepened when an anchor struck Line 5 in 2018 and 2020.

In a statement Friday morning, Enbridge spokesman Michael Barnes said the company was pleased the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. He argued that the federal government has sole authority to regulate the pipeline and that the case raises significant concerns for both energy security and foreign relations.

In addition to Nessel’s lawsuit, the Whitmer administration He also appealed to the Supreme Court to determine whether the state is immune from a lawsuit it filed against Whitmer and the director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for revoking Enbridge’s permit to operate Line 5 in the Strait of Mackinac.

This story is being updated and will be updated with additional information.