Michigan Wins Another Round in Line 5 Battle: Federal Court Denies Enbridge's Appeal

Photo byClaire AndersononUnsplash

Court Denies Enbridge’s Bid to Rehear Line 5 Lawsuit

Lansing, MI - In a major development in the long-standing battle over Line 5, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Enbridge Energy’s request for a rehearing, effectively returning the lawsuit to Michigan state court. The case, brought forward by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, aims to shut down the aging oil pipeline that runs through the Straits of Mackinac, a crucial area between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

Sixth Circuit Upholds Decision to Return Case to State Court

The decision comes after a June ruling by the same court, which remanded the case back to Ingham County’s 30th Circuit Court, under Judge James Jamo. Enbridge had sought an en banc rehearing, hoping that the full bench of judges in the Court of Appeals would reconsider the case. However, the court declined this request, affirming that the lawsuit filed by Nessel belongs in a state jurisdiction rather than federal.

“Our lawsuit to shut down Line 5 belongs in state court, as the federal court of appeals ruled in June, and affirmed today,” said Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement. She emphasized the importance of this ruling in ensuring that the state of Michigan can continue to protect the Great Lakes from potential pollution.

Nessel’s Legal Battle Against Enbridge: A Timeline

The lawsuit, originally filed by AG Nessel in state court, has been entangled in a complex legal back-and-forth between state and federal courts. The case stems from concerns over the safety of Line 5, a pipeline that has been in operation since 1953, transporting oil and natural gas liquids from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario.

In 2020, a state court agreed with Nessel that Line 5 needed to be temporarily shut down following incidents where it was struck by anchors or other objects. Although the court ordered the temporary shutdown, a final decision on the fate of the pipeline was never reached due to Enbridge’s maneuver to remove the case to federal court.

The federal court, however, ruled that Enbridge’s removal was both untimely and improper. In June, the Court of Appeals sided with Nessel, ordering the case back to state court. This recent decision to deny Enbridge’s rehearing request now paves the way for the case to be heard where it originated.

The Environmental Stakes of the Line 5 Debate

At the heart of this legal battle are concerns over the potential environmental impact of Line 5. The pipeline, which crosses the Straits of Mackinac, poses a significant risk to one of the most critical freshwater systems in the world. A leak or rupture could lead to catastrophic consequences for the Great Lakes, impacting not only the ecosystem but also the drinking water supply for millions of people.

“It is a critical responsibility of the State to protect our Great Lakes from the threat of pollution,” said Nessel, underscoring the importance of state courts taking the lead in adjudicating matters related to Michigan’s natural resources.

What’s Next in the Fight to Shut Down Line 5?

With the case returning to state court, Judge James Jamo will once again oversee the legal proceedings. Both Enbridge and Nessel had filed motions during the earlier state court litigation, which were never decided due to the transfer of the case to federal court. Now, those motions are back on the table, and a final decision on Line 5’s future could be on the horizon.

For Enbridge, the stakes are high. The pipeline is a critical piece of infrastructure for the company, providing a vital link for oil transport across the Great Lakes region. For Attorney General Nessel and environmental advocates, the goal remains clear: to shut down Line 5 permanently and protect the Great Lakes from any further threat of pollution.

A Key Victory for State Sovereignty and Environmental Protection

This ruling is being hailed as a significant victory for state sovereignty and environmental protection. By keeping the case in state court, Michigan can assert its right to safeguard its natural resources under state law, without federal interference.

As the case heads back to Ingham County, the spotlight remains on the delicate balance between energy infrastructure and environmental preservation. The outcome of this legal battle could have lasting implications for both the energy industry and environmental policy in the region.