In a legal saga that could redefine federal jurisdiction boundaries, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to review a pivotal Sixth Circuit decision that rebuffed Enbridge Energy LP’s effort to shift Michigan’s high-stakes Line 5 lawsuit from state to federal court. At the heart of the dispute: a ticking 30-day removal deadline and a pipeline running through one of North America’s most sensitive ecological zones.

The case, initially filed by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, seeks to shut down the Line 5 pipeline, which slices beneath the Straits of Mackinac, a critical connector between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. The Sixth Circuit ruled in June 2024 that Enbridge’s attempt to move the case to federal court came too late, citing a statutory time limit that the company allegedly blew past.

Federal Clock Versus Environmental Crisis

Nessel’s lawsuit argues that Line 5 poses an unacceptable environmental risk, threatening a catastrophic spill in the Great Lakes. Enbridge countered that the case transcends state law, touching on international treaties with Canada and federally governed pipeline safety regulations — a position it claims demands federal court attention.

But the appellate court saw things differently. It ruled that Enbridge knew the basis for federal jurisdiction as early as 2020, when it removed a parallel suit filed by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. That, the court said, made Enbridge’s 2021 removal of Nessel’s case too late — with no valid exception to the statutory 30-day deadline.

Circuit Courts Divided — A Legal Fault Line Emerges

Enbridge, in its January petition, argued that a deep split exists among federal appeals courts. The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have allowed exceptions to the 30-day removal rule under extraordinary circumstances, while the Sixth and Second Circuits have taken a stricter view, offering no such leeway.

“The Supreme Court review will resolve this conflict,” said Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy. “The Sixth Circuit’s ruling clashes with decisions from other courts.”

But AG Nessel’s office is pushing back hard, arguing that the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation follows the statutory text and that Enbridge is cherry-picking outdated cases to invent a circuit split.

“This lawsuit belongs in Michigan court,” said Kimberly Bush, spokesperson for Nessel. “We’re unwavering in our mission to shield the Great Lakes from the devastating threat posed by Line 5.”

Environmental Stakes Meet Jurisdictional Chess

While the procedural fight may sound technical, the implications are anything but. If the case stays in state court, Michigan may gain greater traction in its campaign to shut down a major cross-border energy conduit. If the Supreme Court sides with Enbridge, the case could shift to a more favorable federal venue where arguments tied to international treaties and national energy policy may take center stage.

Legal Powerhouses in Play

The courtroom is packed with elite legal firepower:

• Enbridge is represented by:

  • Alice E. Loughran of Steptoe LLP

  • Phillip J. DeRosier and Jeffery V. Stuckey of Dickinson Wright PLLC

  • John J. Bursch of Bursch Law PLLC

• Michigan is represented by:

  • Ann M. Sherman, Daniel Bock, and Keith D. Underkoffler of the Michigan Department of Attorney General

The Next Chapter in an Ongoing Pipeline War

The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case doesn’t just set the stage for a final word on federal versus state jurisdiction — it also intensifies a years-long battle over the fate of Line 5, a pipeline many view as either a vital energy lifeline or a ticking ecological time bomb.

With arguments expected in the coming term, this case may ultimately shape how courts handle urgent environmental issues entangled with procedural rules, international diplomacy, and federalism.

For Enbridge and Michigan, the stakes are as deep as the waters under the Straits.