Detroit, MI — A significant legal battle concerning the future of the Line 5 petroleum pipeline, which traverses the Straits of Mackinac, has taken a decisive turn. A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit panel recently ruled that the lawsuit will proceed in Michigan state courts, rejecting efforts by the pipeline’s owner, Enbridge, to have the case heard at the federal level.
The decision effectively ends a protracted jurisdictional dispute, emphasizing the importance of state law and regional judicial oversight in matters involving environmental concerns and state resources. Sean McBrearty, director of Clean Water Action’s Michigan branch, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, highlighting its significance in addressing critical state-specific issues.
The controversy began in 2019 when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sought to close Line 5, citing environmental risks and potential hazards to the Great Lakes. The following year, Governor Gretchen Whitmer initiated her own measures to cease the pipeline’s operations. Enbridge, a Canadian company, managed to shift the initial legal action brought by Nessel to federal court. However, Governor Whitmer subsequently withdrew her complaint, leaving the matter solely with the state’s Attorney General.
In response to the legal challenges, Enbridge lodged a countersuit in federal court, seeking a sweeping ruling in its favor. The company argued that a summary judgment dismissing the state’s case should be granted before any state ruling. Enbridge asserts that federal courts are the proper venues for the dispute due to the pipeline’s adherence to federal regulations and its implications on international treaties, particularly emphasizing the oversight by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and adherence to the 1977 Transit Treaty between the United States and Canada.
However, the federal appellate court’s decision to remand the case to Michigan’s 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County underscores a clear preference for state jurisdiction in this instance. Officials from Enbridge expressed disappointment, insisting on the federal questions posed by the Attorney General’s complaint about the pipeline’s operation and safety standards.
From the perspective of Michigan’s state administration, the case’s return to a state venue is crucial. Attorney General Nessel reaffirmed her commitment to safeguarding Michigan’s natural resources, stating that the state is best positioned to tackle the environmental threats posed by the pipeline. The state’s legal frameworks and courts are seen as the appropriate channels for resolving such significant local environmental issues.
While Enbridge remains confident in the legal strategies pending in federal courts, the recent appellate court ruling marks a pivotal shift back to state jurisdiction, aligning with efforts by state officials to regulate the pipeline’s operation within Michigan’s boundaries. As the legal proceedings continue, the focus on state versus federal jurisdiction in environmental litigation reflects broader questions about regional autonomy, environmental protection, and national versus local oversight of energy infrastructure.
This latest development is part of an ongoing and complex dialogue about the balance between energy needs, environmental safety, and regulatory authority, as the Great Lakes region grapples with the implications of aging infrastructure and evolving environmental priorities.