Last Friday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Enbridge Energy’s request for a rehearing of its June decision to remand back to a Michigan state court the attorney general’s lawsuit to shut down Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac, announced Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.
The federal court was unpersuaded by Enbridge’s petition for rehearing en banc, seeking to have the entire bench of judges in the Court of Appeals re-hear the case decided earlier this year by the usual appellate panel of three judges. The case, Nessel v. Enbridge, will return to the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County before Judge James Jamo.
“Our lawsuit to shut down Line 5 belongs in state court, as the federal court of appeals ruled in June, and affirmed today,” said Nessel. “It is a critical responsibility of the State to protect our Great Lakes from the threat of pollution. Our state claims, brought under our state law, will continue to be heard in a state court, and I am grateful we are one step closer to resolving this case on behalf of the state of Michigan.”
The attorney general argued before the Sixth Circuit in March that the case seeking to shut down the aging and dangerous oil pipeline must be sent back to state court, where it was originally filed and litigated for over a year. In that state court litigation, the Court agreed with Nessel that Line 5 needed to be temporarily shut down after being struck by anchors or similar objects, and the court ordered a temporary shut down in the summer of 2020. Nessel and the Canadian oil giant each filed motions asking the state court to decide the case, but those motions were never decided because Enbridge then removed the case to federal court long after the deadline to do so had passed.
On appeal, Nessel argued that Enbridge’s removal of the case to federal court was both late and improper. The federal trial court agreed that the federal Court of Appeals should review this question. The Court of Appeals then granted Nessel permission to appeal in July of 2023 before hearing oral arguments in March of this year. In June, the Court of Appeals agreed that Enbridge’s removal was untimely and ordered the case remanded back to state court. Enbridge requested a rehearing by the full bench of the Court of Appeals, which the Court denied last Friday.
The federal court was unpersuaded by Enbridge’s petition for rehearing en banc, seeking to have the entire bench of judges in the Court of Appeals re-hear the case decided earlier this year by the usual appellate panel of three judges. The case, Nessel v. Enbridge, will return to the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County before Judge James Jamo.
“Our lawsuit to shut down Line 5 belongs in state court, as the federal court of appeals ruled in June, and affirmed today,” said Nessel. “It is a critical responsibility of the State to protect our Great Lakes from the threat of pollution. Our state claims, brought under our state law, will continue to be heard in a state court, and I am grateful we are one step closer to resolving this case on behalf of the state of Michigan.”
The attorney general argued before the Sixth Circuit in March that the case seeking to shut down the aging and dangerous oil pipeline must be sent back to state court, where it was originally filed and litigated for over a year. In that state court litigation, the Court agreed with Nessel that Line 5 needed to be temporarily shut down after being struck by anchors or similar objects, and the court ordered a temporary shut down in the summer of 2020. Nessel and the Canadian oil giant each filed motions asking the state court to decide the case, but those motions were never decided because Enbridge then removed the case to federal court long after the deadline to do so had passed.
On appeal, Nessel argued that Enbridge’s removal of the case to federal court was both late and improper. The federal trial court agreed that the federal Court of Appeals should review this question. The Court of Appeals then granted Nessel permission to appeal in July of 2023 before hearing oral arguments in March of this year. In June, the Court of Appeals agreed that Enbridge’s removal was untimely and ordered the case remanded back to state court. Enbridge requested a rehearing by the full bench of the Court of Appeals, which the Court denied last Friday.
