No. 24-783October Term 2025Decided Apr 22, 2026Updated Sep 1, 2026
Enbridge Energy v. Nessel
Enbridge Energy, LP, et al., Petitioners v. Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, on Behalf of the People of the State of Michigan
A late request to move a case from state court to federal court cannot be saved by a district court.
Case status
Decided 8-0 · April 22, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
Read the opinion (PDF)- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Apr 22, 2026
- 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. 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.
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)?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit / Decision released Apr 22, 2026
- Area
Immigration
Decision
What the Court decided
A late request to move a case from state court to federal court cannot be saved by a district court.
Impact
Defendants sued in state court are affected when they want removal (moving a case to federal court). They must file within 30 days, because judges cannot forgive late filings for fairness reasons. For example, Enbridge’s late request meant Michigan’s Line 5 case remained in Michigan state court. The ruling promotes an early, clear decision about where a trial will occur. Late moves could otherwise waste time and money after parties have litigated in one court.
Not official Court text.
Vote
- Vote split
- 8-0
- Majority author
- Sonia Sotomayor
Opinion documents
Briefing
What it's about
Michigan sued Enbridge in state court to stop operation of its Line 5 pipeline. The Supreme Court decided that federal district courts cannot excuse or extend the 30-day deadline for moving a case from state to federal court, so this case remained in Michigan state court.
Vote
Justice Sotomayor wrote the 8–0 opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Jackson, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch.
The Court ruled that district courts cannot excuse or equitably toll the 30-day removal deadline, but the vote count and opinion lineup are not provided.
Impact
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.
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.
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.
Timing
Decided April 22, 2026
The Court released its decision 57 days after oral argument on February 24, 2026. The median for cases argued in February is 106 days.
Documents
Opinions
Sonia Sotomayor
Audio
Key filings
Briefs on file: 23View on supremecourt.gov
Activity
Docket activity7
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
Sep 1, 2026 | Generated
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Sep 1, 2026 | Generated
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Sep 1, 2026 | Generated
Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - SS
Apr 22, 2026 | Court records
Brief added: Questions Presented
Mar 8, 2026 | Court records
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Nessel
Feb 24, 2026 | Court records
Brief added: Petition
Jan 13, 2025 | Court records
Related cases




Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- 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, 2026
- Method
- Methodology
Primary materials10
Supreme Court docket 24-783
docket | Sep 3, 2026
Primary case document
Supreme Court document | Sep 3, 2026
Opinion of the Court (Sonia Sotomayor)
opinion | Apr 22, 2026
Questions Presented
brief | Mar 8, 2026
Oral argument
audio | Feb 24, 2026
Petition
brief | Jan 13, 2025
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Sep 1, 2026
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Sep 1, 2026
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Sep 1, 2026
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Sep 1, 2026