Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel

AI-Generated Summary

Case Name: Enbridge Energy, LP, et al. v. Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, on Behalf of the People of the State of Michigan
Docket Number: No. 24–783
Dates: Argued February 24, 2026—Decided April 22, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Enbridge owns and operates Line 5, a 645-mile petroleum pipeline traversing the Straits of Mackinac under a 1953 easement granted by Michigan. On June 27, 2019, Michigan's Attorney General sued in state court to declare the easement void and halt operations due to spill risks. Enbridge was served on July 12, 2019, but did not remove within 30 days under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1), instead litigating in state court.
In November 2020, the Governor revoked the easement and filed a similar state suit; Enbridge timely removed it to federal court. The District Court denied remand (finding federal-question jurisdiction), and the Governor dismissed her suit. On December 15, 2021 (887 days after service in the AG's suit), Enbridge removed the AG's suit, relying on the prior ruling.
The District Court denied remand, applying equitable tolling, and certified for interlocutory appeal. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding no equitable tolling available. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split.

Whether the 30-day removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) is subject to equitable tolling.
The case involves statutory interpretation of federal removal procedures under Title 28.
Enbridge's main arguments: The deadline is nonjurisdictional (thus presumptively tollable as a statute of limitations) and not rebutted by text, structure, or context.
Attorney General's main arguments: No presumption applies (not a true limitations period); even if it does, rebutted by §1446(b)(1)'s mandatory text, detailed exceptions (e.g., §1446(b)(3), (c)(1)), other statutes allowing tolling in specific cases, and removal scheme's emphasis on efficiency.

Author & Type: Sotomayor, J.; unanimous opinion.
Holding: §1446(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is not subject to equitable tolling; Enbridge's removal was untimely, requiring remand to state court.
Legal Reasoning: Nonjurisdictional deadlines are not automatically tollable (Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert). Even assuming a presumption of tolling applies, it is rebutted: (1) text uses strict "shall" language; (2) structure lists detailed exceptions (e.g., §1446(b)(3) for later-ascertained removability, §1446(c)(1) bad-faith exception to 1-year diversity cap) reflecting equitable considerations, precluding broader tolling (United States v. Brockamp); other statutes explicitly allow tolling "for cause shown" in narrow cases (e.g., §§1441(d), 1454(b)(2), 1441(e)(1), contrasting with §1455 for criminal cases); (3) context prioritizes efficiency, early resolution of forum issues, and finality (BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore), which tolling would undermine by creating uncertainty.
Disposition: Affirmed.

Resolves circuit split, holding civil removal under §1446(b)(1) strictly enforces the 30-day deadline without equitable tolling, ensuring prompt forum determinations and promoting efficiency in federal dockets.
Reinforces that explicit statutory exceptions preclude judicial equitable expansions; underscores distinction between civil and criminal removal; provides certainty to state-court plaintiffs post-deadline, avoiding "clouds of uncertainty" from late removals.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Key terms: Pipeline Easement, Removal Deadline, Federal Transfer