Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Upholds Michigan's Authority in Line 5 Pipeline Case
4/24/2026, 12:12:55 AM
Legal Ruling on Jurisdiction
On April 22, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Michigan's lawsuit against Enbridge Energy regarding the Line 5 pipeline will remain in state court. The decision, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, determined that Enbridge missed the 30-day deadline to transfer the case from state to federal court, a procedural failure that allows the state’s legal action to proceed. The lawsuit, initiated by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in June 2019, seeks to revoke the easement permitting Enbridge to operate a 4.5-mile section of the pipeline beneath the Straits of Mackinac, which connects Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.
Background of the Pipeline Dispute
Line 5, operational since 1953, transports crude oil and natural gas liquids from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario. Concerns about the pipeline's safety have escalated in recent years, particularly after revelations in 2017 that gaps in its protective coating had been known since 2014. A significant incident occurred in 2018 when a boat anchor struck the pipeline, raising fears of a catastrophic spill in one of the world's largest freshwater systems. In response to these concerns, Nessel's lawsuit argues that the pipeline poses an unacceptable risk to the Great Lakes.
Enbridge's Legal Challenges
Enbridge attempted to move the case to federal court in 2021, arguing that the lawsuit involved international trade issues. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in June 2024 that the company had missed the deadline for such a transfer. The Supreme Court's ruling affirms this decision, emphasizing that allowing late removals would undermine the legal framework established by Congress regarding jurisdictional changes.
Official Statements & Responses
Nessel stated, “This unanimous ruling from the United States Supreme Court makes emphatically clear that our lawsuit against Enbridge belongs before the state court.” Enbridge, in response, expressed disappointment, emphasizing that the safety of Line 5 is regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which has consistently found no safety issues warranting a shutdown.
Criticism & Opposition
Environmental groups and tribal nations have long opposed the pipeline, citing the risks it poses to the Great Lakes. Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community, remarked, “Today’s decision honors the truth that the Straits of Mackinac are not a bargaining chip and reaffirms what Tribal Nations have always known – we have the right and the responsibility to protect the Great Lakes.” Critics argue that the aging infrastructure should be decommissioned entirely to prevent potential disasters.
What's Next
While the Supreme Court's ruling allows Michigan's case to proceed, it does not resolve the broader legal disputes surrounding Line 5. Enbridge is currently seeking permits to construct a protective tunnel around the underwater section of the pipeline, a project that has received state approval but faces challenges from environmental groups and tribal nations. Additionally, the pipeline is embroiled in separate litigation in Wisconsin, where a federal judge has ordered a partial shutdown of a segment that crosses tribal land.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The ongoing legal battles highlight the complexities of jurisdiction and regulatory authority over pipeline safety. While Enbridge maintains that federal regulators have the ultimate authority, Michigan officials argue for state oversight based on environmental concerns. The interplay between state and federal rulings continues to create uncertainty regarding the future of Line 5.
