The U.S. Supreme Court will review whether Enbridge Energy properly removed a case to federal court that was filed against it by the state of Michigan.

Enbridge's appeal seeks a federal court venue for a years-long fight over the future of the Line 5 oil pipeline through the Straits of Mackinac. The case was listed Monday as one of several the nation's highest court would consider over the next few months.

The Supreme Court's eventual decision in the case could determine whether a pending state court case deciding the future of the line should be moved to a federal courtroom, where laws are largely more favorable to Enbridge's efforts to keep the pipeline open.

Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judges Richard Griffin, Amul Thapar and John Nalbandian ruled in June that Enbridge had missed a procedural window for filing to remove the case to federal court. The case was filed in state court in 2019, but Enbridge didn't try to remove it to federal court until 2021 — long past a 30-day deadline for removal, the judges said.

Enbridge is challenging that decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the Sixth Circuit's decision clashes with determinations made by other courts of appeals in similar cases.

"The Sixth Circuit’s remand decision is in conflict with decisions from two other federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, which both held that there can be exceptions to the 30-day limit," said Ryan Duffy, a spokesman for Enbridge. "The Supreme Court review will resolve this conflict in the courts of appeals."

Attorney General Dana Nessel's office on Monday said it remained "undeterred" in its commitment to protect the Great Lakes from the "devastating catastrophe" a Line 5 spill would create if the 72-year-old underwater pipeline were to leak into the waterway connecting Lakes Michigan and Huron.

"The department's lawsuit is based on state claims and law, and it belongs before a Michigan court," said Kim Bush, a spokeswoman for the attorney general.

An eventual decision from the U.S. Supreme Court could disrupt ongoing proceedings at the state level.

Ingham County Circuit Court Judge James Jamo heard arguments in late January on the merits of Nessel's attempt to shut down the four-mile segment of Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac. Both sides asked Jamo to dismiss the case in their favor.

Five months later, Jamo has yet to rule on the motions. A finding by the U.S. Supreme Court that the case should be removed to federal court could eliminate Jamo's involvement.

Over the past four years, Enbridge and the state have been engaged in litigation over which court — state or federal — should have jurisdiction over the cases. Enbridge has fought to keep the case in federal court, where federal law and federal regulatory authority would likely prevail. The state of Michigan has fought to anchor the case in state courts, where Michigan law and state regulators are likely to have priority.

Nessel brought her case against Enbridge — the one being taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court — shortly after taking office in 2019.

Enbridge attempted to move the case to federal court about two years later in 2021 — shortly after Canada invoked its transnational pipeline agreement with the U.S., and a federal district judge ruled that a separate, similar case filed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer must remain in federal court. It wasn't until after that decision that Enbridge turned its attention back to Nessel's case and moved to bump it to federal court.

The company has argued U.S. District Judge Janet Neff's 2021 decision in Whitmer's case had constituted new and pertinent action that restarted a 30-day clock for removal that otherwise would have ended in July 2019.

But the three Sixth Circuit judges disagreed, arguing the same facts that led to a prompt removal of Whitmer's case to federal court in 2020 were also present in Nessel's case in 2019.

"While we appreciate the difficulty of navigating complicated doctrines and applying them to unique facts under time constraints, that is what § 1446(b) requires," Griffin wrote, referring to the 30-day deadline for removal.

"And Enbridge showed that it could make these arguments under a tight deadline — it timely filed its notice of removal (and amended notice of removal) articulating these theories within 30 days of its receipt of the complaint in the governor’s case."

Enbridge's Line 5 oil pipeline, particularly the segment beneath the Straits of Mackinac, has long been a source of controversy, with environmental groups voicing concerns about the safety of the line and the catastrophic effects of an oil spill at the nexus of Lakes Huron and Michigan.

Nessel's 2019 suit sought to shutter the line as a public nuisance and Whitmer, about a year later, filed her own suit seeking to support the administration's revocation of an easement for the pipeline.

Enbridge has argued the pipeline is safe and that the state has no jurisdiction over its continued operation. Enbridge says authority over the pipeline instead lies with the federal government on three fronts: the Pipeline Safety Act; a 1977 transit pipeline treaty between the U.S. and Canada that prevents disruptions to the line; and foreign affairs policy.

Aside from the state court case, Enbridge also is suing Whitmer in federal court over its efforts to revoke Line 5's 1953 easement through the Straits of Mackinac, effectively closing the line that transports about 540,000 barrels of light crude oil and natural gas liquids a day.

Enbridge signed an agreement with the state of Michigan in 2018 that promised to build a more than $500 million tunnel beneath the Straits to house a new segment of Line 5 and assuage worries about the prospect of the crude oil and natural gas line spilling into Lakes Huron and Michigan. The project has been held up for five years by permitting and litigation delays.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers currently is considering some of the last permits Enbridge needs to move forward with tunnel construction. The corps is expected to issue a decision in the fall.

©2025 www.detroitnews.com. Visit at detroitnews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.