The U.S. Supreme Court, on April 22, 2026, ruled that the lawsuit over Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline will remain in Michigan state court rather than be transferred to federal court. The decision keeps the litigation over the pipeline’s alleged trespass and damages within the state’s jurisdiction, extending the legal battle for Enbridge.
The ruling was based on Enbridge’s failure to meet a 30‑day deadline to move the case to federal court. Enbridge had repeatedly sought to transfer the lawsuit, arguing that the pipeline’s cross‑border nature made it a federal matter, but the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already ruled in 2024 that the company missed the required filing window. The Supreme Court’s decision therefore upheld the lower court’s finding that the case must stay in state court.
The lawsuit, filed by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in June 2019, seeks to void the 1953 easement that allows Enbridge to operate a 4.5‑mile section of Line 5 beneath the Straits of Mackinac. The state argues that the easement is invalid and that the pipeline violates environmental laws and constitutes a public nuisance. Tribal groups, including the Bay Mills Indian Community, support the lawsuit, citing the Great Lakes’ sacred status and treaty rights.
The significance of the ruling lies in the differing judicial perspectives. State courts are generally viewed as more likely to favor Michigan’s position to shut the pipeline, while federal courts are seen as more sympathetic to Enbridge’s arguments for keeping the line open. By keeping the case in state court, Enbridge faces continued legal risk, potential operational disruptions, and the possibility of future liabilities if the state lawsuit succeeds.
Line 5 is a 70‑year‑old, 645‑mile pipeline that transports crude oil and natural gas liquids from Wisconsin to Ontario. Concerns about its safety have grown, especially for the section beneath the Straits of Mackinac, where the pipeline’s age, a 2018 anchor strike, and the risk of a catastrophic spill in the Great Lakes have heightened scrutiny. The case is part of a broader, complex legal dispute that also includes challenges in Wisconsin and separate actions concerning a proposed tunnel to replace the Straits of Mackinac segment.
The content on EveryTicker is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. We are not financial advisors. Consult with a qualified professional before making any investment decisions. Any actions you take based on information from this site are solely at your own risk.