Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel

Overview

A case in which the Court held that the thirty-day deadline for moving a lawsuit from state court to federal court is a mandatory rule that judges cannot extend for fairness reasons.

Facts

Enbridge operates Line 5, a 645-mile petroleum pipeline with 4 miles crossing Michigan's Straits of Mackinac under a 1953 easement. In June 2019, Michigan's Attorney General sued in state court seeking to void the easement and shut down operations. Enbridge received the complaint on July 12, 2019, but did not remove the case to federal court within the required 30 days, missing the statutory deadline by months.

Issue

Does a state lawsuit to revoke a pipeline easement crossing navigable waters belong in federal court under admiralty jurisdiction or because it is preempted by federal pipeline safety law? Does the federal officer removal statute or the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provide an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction over Michigan's pipeline shutdown suit?

Rule

Federal admiralty jurisdiction extends to tortious acts occurring on navigable waters; whether a state easement revocation suit for a subsurface pipeline falls within admiralty depends on whether the dispute has a sufficient connection to maritime activity. Federal pipeline safety statutes may preempt state common-law or easement-based claims that interfere with federally permitted pipeline operations, providing a basis for federal jurisdiction through the well-pleaded complaint rule's exceptions.

Analysis

The removal statute has always been strict. Congress wrote it to say defendants get 30 days to move a case to federal court, with two narrow exceptions: Confederated Tribes (foreign sovereignty) and Avco (ERISA preemption). When the statute says 30 days, courts have historically read it as 30 days. No more. The statute serves a purpose: state courts get finality, federal diversity jurisdiction flows from state court authority rather than defendant whim, and predictability reigns. If Enbridge could show up six months later and remove on the theory that equitable tolling applies, state courts would lose control over their own dockets.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the 30-day removal deadline under §1446(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling. Because Enbridge missed the deadline, its removal was untimely and the case must proceed in state court. The judgment was affirmed, preserving Michigan's authority to litigate the easement dispute in its own courts.

The decision reaffirms that federal removal statutes are to be read strictly and narrowly. While removal jurisdiction is broadly construed to encompass all removable cases, the procedural requirements for removal are rigorous. Miss the deadline, and you stay in state court.