Picture the map of North America in your head. Zoom in on the Great Lakes. You've got that iconic mitten shape of Michigan. And right at the tip where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron, there's this four-mile stretch of water, the Straits of Mackinac. It's a beautiful, churning, incredibly deep channel of water and sitting right there on the lake bed. Under all that water, two, I think they're 20-inch steel pipes. Yep. Carrying crude oil and liquid propane. This is line five. It's been there since the Eisenhower administration. 1953, to be exact. Right. And today, the fate of that pipeline, and I mean by extension, energy security for the whole Midwest and a massive treaty with Canada. It all hangs in the balance, but not on what you'd think. No, that's the kicker. It's not hanging on an environmental study. It's not hanging on some engineering report. No, it's hanging on a calendar, a 30-day filing deadline, a procedural rule. That sounds like something you'd get points for in a high school civics class. It sounds so trivial, doesn't it? But in the eyes of the law, that little 30-day rule became the front line of a massive constitutional battle. We're talking state sovereignty versus federal jurisdiction. Today we dive into Enbridge Energy versus Nestle. The question the Supreme Court must answer is honestly pretty simple. Can federal judges bend the rules? These statutory deadlines when they smell, you know, dirty tricks. Or do they have to follow the letter of the law even if the result feels totally unfair? It's the ultimate spirit of the law versus letter of the law. Before this pipeline dispute flows any further downstream, as a quick reminder, please follow, rate, subscribe, share, and review the podcast on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, anywhere you podcast. Follow on LinkedIn to get written rundowns. Just search the High Court Report. Think of it as your good deed to help people break down Supreme Court cases. All right, here's what you need to know. You know that feeling when you missed a deadline, but because of a delay beyond your control? Like when your flight gets canceled and the hotel says, sorry, no refunds after 24 hours, but then agrees to waive it because of the storm? Exactly. Now imagine that scenario, but instead with a massive oil pipeline lawsuit from state court to federal court. And instead of a storm, the excuse involves an international treaty with Canada. That sounds way more complicated than my travel problems. Just a little bit. Now the timeline on this case spans decades, but the key action all happens in a crazy five-year window. A massive pipeline called Line 5 that starts in Superior, Wisconsin, cuts through Michigan, goes under the Straits of Mackinac, where Lakes Huron and Michigan meet, and ends up in Sarnia, Ontario. This thing carries 540,000 barrels daily. Enbridge's brief paints a picture of absolutely critical infrastructure. It does. They claim Line 5 supplies upwards of 38% of the regional crude for refineries in Michigan, Ohio, and Canada, and about 65% of the propane from Michigan's Upper Peninsula. So if this line shuts down, We're not just talking about gas prices ticking up a bit. We're talking about people potentially losing the ability to heat their homes in a Michigan winter. And we're not just Michigan infrastructure. It connects the entire North American energy grid. This pipeline operates under two legal frameworks. A 1953 easement from Michigan, allowing it to cross the lake bottom. And a 1977 treaty between the United States and Canada, protecting pipeline operations. That treaty detail feels important. Extremely important. Now, fast forward to 2019. Michigan's Attorney General Dana Nessel decides Line 5 poses too much environmental risk to the Great Lakes. In June 2019, she files a lawsuit in state court not federal court claiming the pipeline violates Michigan public trust doctrine creates a public nuisance and breaks environmental laws What kind of relief did she want Complete shutdown Permanent injunction Turn off the pipeline forever. Relief. And Enbridge, that's the company running the pipeline, fights back in state court? Enbridge moves to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that federal law preempts state claims. But here's the key. They don't try to move the case to federal court yet. Why not? Plot twist coming. In November 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer files her own lawsuit. Virtually identical claims. But she adds one thing. She formally revokes the 1953 easement and gives Enbridge 180 days to shut down Line 5. So now, there are two separate lawsuits seeking to close the same pipeline. But here's where Enbridge makes different choices. Enbridge immediately moves the governor's case to federal court, arguing it raises substantial federal questions. Governor Whitmer tries to fend off removal to keep the case in state court. She wants home field advantage in state court. What about the attorney general's case? Enbridge leaves it in state court. The parties actually agree to pause the case while the federal court decides whether to keep the governor's case. The federal judge says, I'm keeping this case, and rejects the governor's effort to return the case to state court. The judge finds federal jurisdiction because the claims implicate the Pipeline Safety Act, the Submerged Lands Act, and that 1977 treaty with Canada. Canada filed an amicus brief supporting Enbridge. Then, and this escalates everything, in October 2021, Canada formally invokes the dispute resolution provisions of the 1977 treaty. That means Canada officially told the United States, your state court lawsuits violate our international treaty. That sounds like a diplomatic crisis. But here's where Michigan tries to get, shall we say, creative. Governor Whitmer voluntarily dismisses her federal case in November 2021. She issues a press release saying she disagrees with the federal court keeping jurisdiction. so she's shifting legal strategy to give Michigan state courts the final say. That sounds like forum shopping. Textbook forum shopping? The same day, Attorney General Nessel announces she fully supports the dismissal because her state court case provides the most viable path to permanently decommission Line 5. So they're trying to manipulate which court decides this? Absolutely. And that brings us to December 15, 2021. Enbridge finally removes the attorney general's case to federal court, two and a half years after the original filing. Way past the 30-day deadline. Way, way past. About 850 days, to be exact. The federal district court says this removal counts as timely, because extraordinary circumstances justify extending the deadline. But the Sixth Circuit disagrees and sends the case back to state court. Enbridge appealed to the Supreme Court. And now the Supreme Court gets the final word. The legal question, and stick with me here, is whether federal courts may apply equitable tolling to the 30-day removal deadline under 28 U.S.C. section 1446 B.1 when extraordinary circumstances prevent timely filing. So that's actually asking two questions, right? Exactly. First, can courts ever extend the 30-day deadline for moving cases to federal court? And second, if they can, do these specific circumstances count as extraordinary enough? Let me translate that deadline rule. Federal law says defendants get 30 days to move a case from state court to federal court. No exceptions for hardship or extraordinary situations. Miss that window and you normally stay in state court forever. But here's the thing. some courts create an atextual exception, basically to overlook untimely removal requests because something really unusual prevented you from meeting the deadline That called equitable tolling But the Supreme Court never recognized this exception The question then becomes does this 30 rule allow those kinds of exceptions And if so what counts as a good enough excuse? And this case presents pretty unusual circumstances. Let's move to the arguments. Enbridge makes three main arguments. First, they say the 30-day removal deadline should get the same treatment as other federal filing deadlines. Meaning what exactly? The Supreme Court generally says that when Congress creates a filing deadline, courts can extend it in extraordinary circumstances unless Congress specifically says no exceptions whatsoever. Like a background rule of reasonableness? Yes. Enbridge points to cases like Young versus United States, where the court said equitable tolling applies to statutes that prescribe a period within which certain rights may be enforced. And removal rights qualify? Enbridge says yes. After 30 days, you lose the right to remove unless extraordinary circumstances save you. That fits the pattern. Their second argument attacks the idea that Congress prohibited these extensions. How so? Other removal statutes contain express exceptions for specific types of defendants, federal officers, foreign governments, stuff like that. But those exceptions appear in separate statutory schemes, not in the basic 30-day rule itself. So Congress knows how to write exceptions when it wants them? Right. But Enbridge says the exceptions appearing elsewhere don't prove Congress wanted to ban judicial flexibility for regular defendants. It's like saying employee handbook rules for managers don't limit HR discretion for everyone else. Their third argument gets into the specific facts. Enbridge says these circumstances scream extraordinary. What makes them extraordinary? Three things. First, this pipeline operates under an international treaty that Canada formally invoked. Second, Michigan deliberately manipulated forums by dismissing the federal case to force state court resolution. Third, Enbridge reasonably held the case in abeyance, while federal courts resolved the identical legal issues. That does sound different from typical removal cases. Enbridge emphasizes that the United States itself acknowledged this case creates substantial monetary damages, risks, and threatens trade and diplomatic relations with Canada. When the federal government says a case implicates international relations, that carries weight. How does Michigan's Attorney General respond? Dana Nessel makes three counterarguments. First, she says the presumption Enbridge relies on only applies to traditional statutes of limitations. Nessel argues that real statutes of limitations protect defendants against stale claims. Like, you can't sue me for a car accident that happened five years ago. But removal deadlines just decide which court hears a case that already exists. So it's about form selection, not claim staleness? Exactly. She cites a Supreme Court case called John R. Sand and Gravel, saying that when deadlines serve broader system-related goals, like judicial efficiency, rather than protecting against stale claims, courts shouldn't add exceptions. Her second argument catalogs all the express exceptions Congress already wrote into removal law. How many exceptions? She finds six different provisions that explicitly extend or modify the 30-day deadline for specific situations. Her point, Congress knew exactly how to authorize flexibility when it wanted to. And it chose not to authorize general judicial flexibility? That's her argument. Plus, she emphasizes that Congress used mandatory language, shall file within 30 days, and called timely filing a requirement. Her third argument says these facts don't justify tolling, even if it were generally available. Nessel points out that Enbridge raised the exact same federal preemption arguments in state court back in September 2019 If they thought federal courts should handle this case why wait over two years to remove it What about the parallel litigation excuse She says that represents a strategic choice, not an extraordinary impediment. Enbridge could have removed both cases simultaneously or removed this one when they removed the governor's case. So Michigan argues this was gamesmanship, not exceptional circumstances? Right. Nessel says allowing tolling here would encourage defendants to delay removal decisions and manipulate timing for strategic advantage. Time for what this actually means. If Enbridge wins, defendants get more flexibility to move cases to federal court when genuinely extraordinary circumstances arise. But Nessel warns it could encourage gamesmanship. Defendants might intentionally delay removal, then claim extraordinary circumstances when state courts start ruling against them. Also, if the Supreme court says 30-day deadlines don't bend, even for international treaties, that could affect how courts handle other cases involving foreign relations. And if Nessel wins? It reinforces that congressional deadlines mean exactly what they say. No judicial exceptions based on equitable concerns. Period. But there's a middle ground possibility. The court might distinguish between ordinary strategic delays and cases involving genuine international incidents. Creating a Canada formally invoked a treaty exception? Something like that. The court could say, removal deadlines generally don't allow extensions, but when international relations actually get implicated, different rules apply. Looking ahead to oral arguments, expect the justices to press both sides hard. What should we watch for? First, how the court characterizes removal deadlines. Do they see them as statutes of limitations deserving flexibility, or jurisdictional rules requiring strict enforcement? The international law angle could be decisive. If justices view this as affecting U.S. treaty obligations and diplomatic relations, they might find ways to distinguish it from ordinary removal cases. Enbridge holds a clear path to victory if they convince the court that international treaty implications create genuinely exceptional circumstances. But the Attorney General holds strong textual arguments about congressional intent. The court's textualist majority might say, Congress wrote clear deadlines and we don't add exceptions Congress didn't include. Bottom line, time. Why does this case matter? Because it defines the balance between congressional control over federal jurisdiction and judicial flexibility in extraordinary circumstances. And the specific facts involve environmental law, energy policy, and international relations. Right. Line 5 carries oil that heats homes and fuels transportation across the upper Midwest. Shutting it down creates economic disruptions. Keeping it running creates environmental risks. But the legal question transcends this specific pipeline. Exactly. The court's ruling will affect removal practice in thousands of future cases. Do defendants get second chances when extraordinary circumstances arise? Or do congressional deadlines mean business? And Congress can always change the law if it disagrees with the court's interpretation. True, but given congressional dysfunction, Supreme Court interpretations of federal statutes often become permanent fixtures. We'll definitely follow this one through oral arguments and decision. The intersection of international law, federal jurisdiction, and environmental policy with real economic stakes for both countries. That's Enbridge versus Nestle. Oral arguments should produce fireworks, especially if the justices start asking about treaty obligations and diplomatic consequences. If you made it this far, share this episode with someone who thinks Supreme Court cases don't affect daily life. Because energy prices and environmental protection definitely affect everyone's daily life. You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Just search The High Court Report. Questions about this case? Hit us up on LinkedIn at The High Court Report. Great breakdown today. Talk soon.
