By Lily Guiney
Gongwer News Service
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the venue – state or federal court – for a longstanding legal battle between Enbridge Energy and Attorney General Dana Nessel over the future of Line 5, as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to develop a new environmental impact statement for putting a tunnel around the pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac.
The high court granted certiorari in Enbridge v. Nessel on Monday, just as the Army Corps concluded the public comment period on the tunnel project's draft environmental impact statement with impassioned pressure from both environmental groups opposed to the tunnel project and labor and manufacturing advocates hoping to see it quickly permitted.
After a directive from President Donald Trump to speed up securing permits for the tunnel project earlier this year, the period for public input on the draft statement was condensed, to the chagrin of the project's opponents.
"Folks from across the Great Lakes have been active over the past several years in engaging the Army Corps for a thorough review of the Line 5 oil tunnel," Oil and Water Don't Mix campaign coordinator Sean McBrearty said in a statement. "But the Army Corps is now violating the spirit and the intent of public participation under the National Environmental Policy Act, which is an affront to democracy and could result in harmful impacts to our Great Lakes for generations to come."
The Great Lakes Michigan Jobs Coalition, made up of labor, manufacturing, energy and business groups, expressed its support for the Army Corps draft statement. Operating Engineers 324 Vice President Douglas Stockwell, a member of the coalition, said the statement shows the tunnel project can be conducted safely and permits should be granted from the state.
"Let's grant these permits," Stockwell said in a statement. "The Great Lakes Tunnel will be built safely, and the Army Corps' analysis makes it clear – the tunnel is the best solution for the Great Lakes and for Michigan jobs."
The tunnel project is supported by those who argue shutting down Line 5 would be extremely detrimental to the Upper Peninsula and rural areas in Northern Lower Michigan that rely on propane from the Canadian company. Tunneling the pipeline was proposed as an alternative to shutting it down entirely, despite ongoing concerns that a tunnel wouldn't do enough to protect the Great Lakes in the event of a malfunction or that the tunnel construction would do further detriment to the straits' ecosystem.
"Line 5 transports up to 23 million gallons of fuel each day – energy that powers Michigan's manufacturing sector, supports regional supply chains, and keeps families and businesses moving,"
Michigan Manufacturers Association Director of Environmental and Regulatory Policy Mike Witkowski said in a statement. "The U.S. Army Corps has heard from thousands of Michiganders who understand the importance of modernizing this infrastructure, and we're confident those voices will be reflected in the final decision. It's time to move forward with the Great Lakes Tunnel."
Although a SCOTUS ruling on the venue for the case has no bearing on the tunnel project itself, it could signal forward movement in a lawsuit that's been ongoing since 2019. For the groups fighting the construction of a tunnel and seeking the total shutdown of Line 5, a foray to the Supreme Court is just a distraction from the cause at home.
"Today's news that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Enbridge's venue appeal underscores a critical fact: the decision on the proposed Line 5 tunnel remains squarely in the hands of state authorities, who are currently reviewing crucial permits that will determine the project's future," McBrearty said. "While Enbridge takes its challenge of Attorney General Dana Nessel's federal shutdown lawsuit to the Supreme Court, the Canadian corporation continues to profit financially from every delay in the legal process. Each day of legal maneuvering means millions more in revenue for Enbridge while Michigan communities bear the environmental and financial risks."
Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said the company is "encouraged" by the Supreme Court's decision to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which remanded the lawsuit to a state court.
"In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan determined that Enbridge had timely removed the Attorney General's lawsuit because exceptional circumstances allowed for exceeding the 30-day time limit. The District Court cited the important federal issues in this case, including U.S.-Canada Treaty issues, and the fact that litigation of these issues was already pending in another case in federal court," Duffy said in a statement. "However, the 6th Circuit reversed, deciding that district courts have no authority to give exceptions to the 30-day time limit. The 6th Circuit's remand decision is in conflict with decisions from two other federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, which both held that there can be exceptions to the 30-day limit. The Supreme Court review will resolve this conflict in the courts of appeals."
Gongwer News Service
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the venue – state or federal court – for a longstanding legal battle between Enbridge Energy and Attorney General Dana Nessel over the future of Line 5, as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to develop a new environmental impact statement for putting a tunnel around the pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac.
The high court granted certiorari in Enbridge v. Nessel on Monday, just as the Army Corps concluded the public comment period on the tunnel project's draft environmental impact statement with impassioned pressure from both environmental groups opposed to the tunnel project and labor and manufacturing advocates hoping to see it quickly permitted.
After a directive from President Donald Trump to speed up securing permits for the tunnel project earlier this year, the period for public input on the draft statement was condensed, to the chagrin of the project's opponents.
"Folks from across the Great Lakes have been active over the past several years in engaging the Army Corps for a thorough review of the Line 5 oil tunnel," Oil and Water Don't Mix campaign coordinator Sean McBrearty said in a statement. "But the Army Corps is now violating the spirit and the intent of public participation under the National Environmental Policy Act, which is an affront to democracy and could result in harmful impacts to our Great Lakes for generations to come."
The Great Lakes Michigan Jobs Coalition, made up of labor, manufacturing, energy and business groups, expressed its support for the Army Corps draft statement. Operating Engineers 324 Vice President Douglas Stockwell, a member of the coalition, said the statement shows the tunnel project can be conducted safely and permits should be granted from the state.
"Let's grant these permits," Stockwell said in a statement. "The Great Lakes Tunnel will be built safely, and the Army Corps' analysis makes it clear – the tunnel is the best solution for the Great Lakes and for Michigan jobs."
The tunnel project is supported by those who argue shutting down Line 5 would be extremely detrimental to the Upper Peninsula and rural areas in Northern Lower Michigan that rely on propane from the Canadian company. Tunneling the pipeline was proposed as an alternative to shutting it down entirely, despite ongoing concerns that a tunnel wouldn't do enough to protect the Great Lakes in the event of a malfunction or that the tunnel construction would do further detriment to the straits' ecosystem.
"Line 5 transports up to 23 million gallons of fuel each day – energy that powers Michigan's manufacturing sector, supports regional supply chains, and keeps families and businesses moving,"
Michigan Manufacturers Association Director of Environmental and Regulatory Policy Mike Witkowski said in a statement. "The U.S. Army Corps has heard from thousands of Michiganders who understand the importance of modernizing this infrastructure, and we're confident those voices will be reflected in the final decision. It's time to move forward with the Great Lakes Tunnel."
Although a SCOTUS ruling on the venue for the case has no bearing on the tunnel project itself, it could signal forward movement in a lawsuit that's been ongoing since 2019. For the groups fighting the construction of a tunnel and seeking the total shutdown of Line 5, a foray to the Supreme Court is just a distraction from the cause at home.
"Today's news that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Enbridge's venue appeal underscores a critical fact: the decision on the proposed Line 5 tunnel remains squarely in the hands of state authorities, who are currently reviewing crucial permits that will determine the project's future," McBrearty said. "While Enbridge takes its challenge of Attorney General Dana Nessel's federal shutdown lawsuit to the Supreme Court, the Canadian corporation continues to profit financially from every delay in the legal process. Each day of legal maneuvering means millions more in revenue for Enbridge while Michigan communities bear the environmental and financial risks."
Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said the company is "encouraged" by the Supreme Court's decision to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which remanded the lawsuit to a state court.
"In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan determined that Enbridge had timely removed the Attorney General's lawsuit because exceptional circumstances allowed for exceeding the 30-day time limit. The District Court cited the important federal issues in this case, including U.S.-Canada Treaty issues, and the fact that litigation of these issues was already pending in another case in federal court," Duffy said in a statement. "However, the 6th Circuit reversed, deciding that district courts have no authority to give exceptions to the 30-day time limit. The 6th Circuit's remand decision is in conflict with decisions from two other federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, which both held that there can be exceptions to the 30-day limit. The Supreme Court review will resolve this conflict in the courts of appeals."
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
