The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a narrow procedural question in a dispute over the Line 5 oil pipeline, which could decide whether Michigan state courts or federal courts handle the case. The pipeline crosses the ecologically sensitive Straits of Mackinac, sacred to Anishinaabe peoples and protected by treaty rights for several tribal nations. Michigan officials seek to shut it down due to spill risks, while Enbridge argues for its continued operation.
The case before the Supreme Court, Enbridge v. Nessel, focuses on whether a lower federal court correctly permitted Enbridge to transfer the lawsuit from Michigan state court to federal court more than two years after the standard 30-day deadline. This procedural move, justified by the lower court as involving "exceptional circumstances," stems from a 2019 suit filed by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel to decommission the 645-mile Line 5 pipeline. The pipeline transports over 500,000 barrels of oil and natural gas daily from Superior, Wisconsin, through Michigan, to Ontario, Canada, and has leaked more than 30 times inland, spilling over a million gallons of oil in total.
In 2020, Michigan revoked the pipeline's operating approval, referencing the 1836 Treaty of Washington and potential severe impacts from an oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac on tribal fishing and hunting rights. Five tribal nations hold these federal treaty-protected rights, which predate Michigan's statehood. The Straits, connecting Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, are central to Anishinaabe creation stories and ecologically vital, supplying freshwater to an estimated 40 million people. All 12 federally recognized tribes in Michigan have urged the pipeline's shutdown, though they are not direct parties in this suit. Governor Gretchen Whitmer initially sued Enbridge to enforce the revocation but dropped her case in 2021 to back Nessel's action in state court.
David Gover, managing attorney at the Native American Rights Fund, emphasized the stakes: "What’s at stake... is the authority for the state of Michigan to manage state resources and public trust matters like the lakebed." Wenona Singel, director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State University’s College of Law and a citizen of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, noted that such procedural decisions can delay resolutions in Indian law cases, with environmental and cultural consequences.
Enbridge maintains that safety concerns are overstated, as the pipeline passes inspections and federal regulators have found no issues. A company spokesperson stated, "The Supreme Court’s review will provide needed clarity." The pipeline supplies half the oil for Ontario and Quebec, and Canada opposes closure. This hearing is part of broader litigation, including Enbridge's federal suit against Whitmer, upcoming Michigan Supreme Court review of a tunnel permit, and a recent Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa challenge in Wisconsin. Bad River Band Chairwoman Elizabeth Arbuckle said, "The Bad River watershed is not an oil pipeline corridor... It is our homeland. We must protect it."
