On August 16, 2024, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Enbridge Energy's request for a rehearing of its June decision to remand back to a Michigan state court the Attorney General’s lawsuit aimed at shutting down Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac. The announcement was made by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. The federal court was unpersuaded by Enbridge’s petition for rehearing en banc, which sought to have the entire bench of judges in the Court of Appeals re-hear the case previously decided by a three-judge panel. Consequently, the case, Nessel v. Enbridge, will return to the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County before Judge James Jamo.
"Our lawsuit to shut down Line 5 belongs in state court, as the federal court of appeals ruled in June and affirmed today," said Nessel. "It is a critical responsibility of the State to protect our Great Lakes from the threat of pollution. Our state claims, brought under our state law, will continue to be heard in a state court, and I am grateful we are one step closer to resolving this case on behalf of the state of Michigan."
The Attorney General argued before the Sixth Circuit in March that the case seeking to shut down the aging and dangerous oil pipeline must be sent back to state court where it was originally filed and litigated for over a year. During that period, AG Nessel successfully argued that Line 5 needed temporary shutdown after being struck by anchors or similar objects; this led to a temporary shutdown order issued during summer 2020. Both Attorney General Nessel and Enbridge had filed motions asking for a decision from state court but these motions were never addressed as Enbridge moved the case to federal court after missing its deadline.
Attorney General Nessel contended on appeal that Enbridge's removal of the case to federal court was both late and improper. The federal trial court agreed that this issue should be reviewed by the federal Court of Appeals. In July 2023, permission was granted for an appeal before oral arguments took place in March this year. By June, it was determined that Enbridge’s removal was untimely and ordered remand back to state court ensued. Today's denial effectively ends Enbridge's request for a full bench rehearing.
###