A coalition of ten Michigan tribal nations has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Enbridge Energy’s bid to move the contentious Line 5 pipeline lawsuit to federal jurisdiction, arguing that the case belongs in state courts. This latest development underscores a years-long legal battle centered on environmental protection, tribal sovereignty, and the future of critical infrastructure in the Great Lakes region.
The ongoing legal saga surrounding Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline has reached the highest court in the land, with ten Michigan tribal nations filing a crucial amicus brief. Their message to the U.S. Supreme Court is clear: the lawsuit, initiated by Attorney General Dana Nessel in 2019, should remain in state court, arguing against what they call Enbridge’s “procedural gamesmanship” to sidestep a critical deadline.
The Heart of the Dispute: State vs. Federal Jurisdiction
At the core of this legal dispute is a fundamental question of jurisdiction. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel first filed a lawsuit in 2019, seeking to decommission the aging Line 5 pipeline that traverses the Straits of Mackinac. Her aim was to prevent a catastrophic oil leak that could devastate the Great Lakes. Enbridge, a Canadian oil pipeline company, has since sought to move the case from state to federal court, a move that has been fiercely contested.
The latest twist involves a 30-day deadline for requesting a case transfer to federal court, which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined Enbridge had missed. Despite this ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in June to review Enbridge’s appeal, which seeks an exemption to this procedural deadline. According to Caroline Flynn, a lawyer at Earthjustice representing the tribes, Enbridge missed the deadline by more than two years “without excuse,” making their current attempt a transparent act of “gamesmanship.”
The tribes’ amicus brief specifically states that “no part of section 1446 allows a defendant to escape the 30-day deadline by asserting that it only recently discovered that a federal court might be more sympathetic to its arguments.” This sentiment underscores their belief that the case is a state public-trust dispute that Enbridge is trying to complicate for its own benefit, as detailed in an Earthjustice brief.
A Legacy of Risk: Why Line 5 Matters to the Great Lakes
The Line 5 pipeline, operational for 72 years, transports over 500,000 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids daily from Superior, Wisconsin, through Michigan’s Straits of Mackinac to Sarnia, Ontario. Its location in the environmentally sensitive Great Lakes, which hold 20% of the world’s fresh surface water, makes any potential leak a significant threat.
Concerns are not theoretical; the tribes and environmental advocates frequently cite the 2010 leak of Enbridge’s Line 6B into the Kalamazoo River as a stark reminder of the environmental devastation an oil spill can inflict. The tribal nations emphasize the state’s “public-trust obligation to protect the straits of mackinac and the great lakes, including the fisheries, from these known dangers of the aging straits pipelines.” For them, Michigan’s lawsuit represents a “long-overdue course correction,” as reported by Michigan Advance.
Voices of Sovereignty: Tribal Nations Stand United
The decision by Michigan tribal nations to file an amicus brief is a powerful assertion of their sovereignty and a deep concern for their ancestral lands and waters. Ten specific tribal nations joined this critical brief:
- Bay Mills Indian Community
- Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
- Hannahville Indian Community
- Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
- Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
- Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
- Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians
- Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi Tribe (NHBP)
- Pokagon Band of Potawatomi
- Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Whitney Gravelle, President of the Bay Mills Indian Community, articulated the gravity of the situation, stating that “the continued operation of Line 5 puts my Tribal Nation in grave danger.” She added that the tribes stand with the Attorney General to defend their rights, waters, and the future of the Great Lakes for the “next seven generations.” This collective action follows a similar brief filed by 63 tribal nations during the case’s tenure in the federal appellate court, all advocating for the case’s return to state jurisdiction.
Enbridge’s Stance and the Broader Implications
Enbridge maintains that its attempt to move the case to federal court is justified due to “important federal issues,” including those related to U.S.-Canada Treaty obligations. Ryan Duffy, a spokesperson for Enbridge, noted that the Sixth Circuit’s remand decision conflicted with rulings from two other federal circuit courts that allowed exceptions to the 30-day limit. He expressed encouragement that the Supreme Court agreed to review the decision, believing it will “resolve this conflict in the courts of appeals.”
Separately, Enbridge has proposed the Great Lakes Tunnel Project, which would relocate a section of Line 5 into a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Enbridge argues this upgrade would enhance reliability and protect the gas supply chain. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report in June determined that the tunnel project would have a “beneficial cumulative effect” on Michigan’s environment by reducing oil leak risks, despite acknowledging “direct, short-term, detrimental impacts” during construction. This seven-year project, yet to break ground, has seen its expedition driven by former President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring a national energy emergency.
What This Means for the Future of Environmental Protection and Tribal Rights
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision on whether to grant Enbridge an exemption to the 30-day deadline will have far-reaching implications. It will not only determine the jurisdictional pathway for this specific Line 5 lawsuit but could also set a significant precedent for future environmental litigation involving cross-border energy infrastructure and challenges to state regulatory authority.
For the Michigan tribal nations, this case is a vital front in their ongoing struggle to protect their treaty-protected resources and uphold their inherent sovereignty. The outcome will influence the balance of power between corporate interests, state environmental protections, and indigenous rights, shaping the future of environmental governance in the critical Great Lakes basin for generations to come.
