Skip to main content

Enbridge Energy v. Nessel

Updated Sep 1, 2026

In brief

A late request to move a case from state court to federal court cannot be saved by a district court.

Where it stands
Decided

Decided 8-0 · April 22, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor

What it’s about
Michigan sued Enbridge in state court to stop operation of its Line 5 pipeline, but Enbridge did not try to move the case to federal court until long after the 30-day removal deadline had passed.
Who it affects
Parties that want to move a lawsuit to federal court must meet the 30-day deadline. For example, a company sued by a state cannot rely on a judge to forgive a late filing.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Enbridge Energy, LP, et al., Petitioners v. Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, on Behalf of the People of the State of Michigan
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Supreme Court held that federal district courts cannot excuse or equitably toll that deadline, so the case had to remain in Michigan state court.

The decision sets a strict national rule for the deadline to transfer eligible cases from state court to federal court.

Question presented

Do district courts have the authority to excuse the thirty-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1)?

What the Court decided

The vote

  • Joined the judgment
  • Wrote an opinion
Majority · 8joined the Court's opinion
  1. Sotomayorwrote the opinion
  2. Roberts
  3. Thomas
  4. Alito
  5. Kagan
  6. Jackson
  7. Kavanaugh
  8. Gorsuch
8 justices joined the judgment.

What's next

Michigan's lawsuit against Enbridge proceeds in Michigan state court. Lower federal courts must apply the 30-day removal deadline without equitable exceptions.

Documents

4

Docket activity

12
  • New analysis added

    Sep 1, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis

    Sep 1, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary

    Sep 1, 2026 · Generated

  • New analysis added

    Sep 1, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Sep 1, 2026 · Generated

Show 7 more
  • New analysis added

    Aug 2, 2026 · Court records

  • New analysis added

    Aug 1, 2026 · Court records

  • Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - SS

    Apr 22, 2026 · Court records

  • Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Nessel

    Feb 24, 2026 · Court records

  • Argued. For petitioners: John J. Bursch, Caledonia, Mich. For respondent: Ann M. Sherman, Solicitor General, Lansing, Mich.

    Feb 24, 2026 · supremecourt.gov

  • Brief added: Petition

    Jan 13, 2025 · Court records

  • Brief added: Questions Presented

    Court records

More questions

3
What did the Supreme Court rule in Enbridge Energy v. Nessel?
The Court said federal district courts cannot forgive or extend the 30-day deadline for moving a case from state court to federal court.
Who is affected by the Enbridge Energy decision?
Businesses, states, and other litigants seeking federal court are affected. They must file removal requests within 30 days or remain in state court.
What happens next in Enbridge Energy v. Nessel?
Michigan's lawsuit over Line 5 continues in Michigan state court. Federal district courts must enforce the removal deadline without equitable exceptions.

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Sep 1, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis