Enbridge Energy, LP, et al., Petitioners v. Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, on Behalf of the People of the State of Michigan

Michigan sued Enbridge in state court to shut down its Line 5 pipeline, but Enbridge tried to move the case to federal court after the 30-day deadline had passed. The Supreme Court said federal district courts cannot excuse that deadline, so the case stays in Michigan state court.

The Court ruled for Michigan and said district courts cannot excuse or equitably toll the 30-day removal deadline, but the vote count and opinion lineup are not provided here.

Majority

Sotomayor

Roberts

Thomas

Alito

Kagan

Jackson

Kavanaugh

Gorsuch

The decision makes the removal deadline a firm limit for parties that want to shift a case from state court to federal court. For example, a company that waits too long cannot ask a district judge to forgive the delay and keep the case in federal court.

The Line 5 fight now continues in Michigan state court, because federal court is no longer available through late removal. Lower courts will have to apply the Supreme Court's rule by treating the 30-day deadline as fixed, not flexible.

The case asked whether a federal district court can forgive a late notice of removal after the 30-day deadline in federal law. The Court said no.

Parties must act quickly if they want federal court. States and other plaintiffs can keep cases in state court when the other side misses the deadline.

The case returns to Michigan state court for the underlying dispute over Line 5. Enbridge cannot rely on late removal to move this lawsuit into federal court.