Overview
- The justices heard oral arguments Tuesday in Enbridge v. Nessel on whether courts may allow removal to federal court long after the statute’s 30‑day window.
- Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted Michigan’s sovereign interests as a factor favoring a state forum, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned what right Enbridge would lose if the case stays in state court.
- Justice Samuel Alito noted potential foreign‑affairs consequences and delay in reaching treaty issues if a state court were to issue an injunction, and other justices probed the prospect of parallel state and federal cases.
- Enbridge argues federal pipeline law and a 1977 U.S.–Canada transit‑pipeline treaty justify a federal forum; Michigan points to state public‑trust claims over Great Lakes resources and the Sixth Circuit’s ruling that Enbridge missed the deadline.
- The venue fight unfolds alongside related battles, including a 2023 federal order requiring a Bad River reroute or shutdown by June 2026 and pending permit and court reviews of Enbridge’s proposed tunnel and reroute projects.