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hard, arguing that the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation follows the statutory text and that Enbridge is cherry-picking outdated cases to invent a circuit split.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