The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether Enbridge waited too long to move Michigan’s Line 5 lawsuit from state court to federal court — a procedural fight in the state’s long-running battle over the pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.
The dispute is part of a broader fight over Enbridge’s plan to build a four-mile tunnel for its aging Line 5 pipeline, an $800 million project the company said would be safer for the Great Lakes. Opponents warned a potential spill would be devastating.
Sonia Sotomayor, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, pressed Enbridge during arguments Tuesday about why they feel the case needs to be in federal court.
"You call it a right to have a federal court try the case," Sotomayor said. "You have a right to have recovery for a loss or potential loss. The forum where that right is adjudicated is not lost. You have a forum. You have the state court."
Enbridge contended the dispute affects energy supplies for millions of people and should be heard in federal court, while the state said the law confirms the case should stay where it was filed. The High Court ruling will not decide the tunnel’s fate but it could shape where and how quickly Michigan’s case moves forward.
Enbridge also faced sharp questions about why the case was not moved sooner and what, exactly, changed along the way.
Paul Burch, attorney for Enbridge, told the court the picture shifted after Canada invoked a treaty from 1977, aimed at keeping oil and gas moving across the U.S.-Canada border.
"I don't think it was clear to anyone that it was necessarily a federal jurisdiction at the outset of the state court case that the attorney general filed," Burch acknowledged. "But by the time that the governor terminated the easement and then Canada invoked the treaty, that really changed the lay of the land."
Michigan argued Enbridge missed the 30-day deadline and warned a late move to federal court would weaken the states’ power to enforce their own laws. Enbridge countered it is an unusual case with national and international implications. The justices are expected to rule on the case later this year.
