The future of the controversial Line 5 pipeline, which carries crude oil and natural gas liquids across the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan, is currently in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, which dates back to a 2019 lawsuit by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel seeking to shut down the pipeline due to risks to the Great Lakes, raises questions about whether state or federal court will have the final say.
During oral arguments on Tuesday, justices grilled both the attorney general’s team and lawyers representing Enbridge Energy, the Canadian pipeline company that operates Line 5. While the specific question before the Supreme Court is procedural — whether courts can excuse Enbridge from missing the deadline to request moving the case to federal court — the justices acknowledged that the decision could have broad implications, including for U.S.-Canada relations.
Line 5 has been in operation since 1953, transporting oil and natural gas liquids from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario, with a crucial segment passing through the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. Enbridge argues that the case should be heard in federal court, where issues related to pipeline safety regulations and international agreements can be properly addressed. On the other hand, Nessel argues that Line 5 falls under state jurisdiction due to concerns about the use of natural resources for the public good.
The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision on Line 5’s jurisdiction is expected before the end of the court term in summer. If the court rules in favor of Michigan, it would uphold the Sixth Circuit’s decision that Enbridge missed the deadline to change venues, making Line 5 an issue for state court. However, if the court decides that there is leeway in the 30-day deadline, the case could take a different direction.
The stakes are high for all parties involved, including the federally recognized tribes in Michigan who have expressed support for shutting down the pipeline to protect their waters, treaty rights, and ways of life. The decision of the Supreme Court on this matter will have significant implications for energy security, foreign affairs, and the environment. As the justices deliberate on the future of Line 5, the outcome of this case will undoubtedly shape the landscape of pipeline regulation and oversight in the United States. The tribal nation in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula is currently embroiled in a legal battle against Line 5, a controversial pipeline that runs through the Great Lakes. The tribe, along with other environmental groups, is deeply concerned about the potential risks posed by the pipeline to the pristine waters of the Great Lakes.
According to tribal spokesperson Gravelle, Line 5 poses a significant threat to not only the Great Lakes but also to the tribal communities that rely on them for sustenance and livelihood. The tribe is actively involved in separate litigation against Line 5, highlighting the urgent need to address the risks associated with the pipeline.
While the Supreme Court case unfolds, Enbridge, the company responsible for Line 5, is pushing forward with plans to replace the existing dual-pipeline infrastructure in the Straits with a tunnel that would house a new segment buried under the lakebed. The company is currently awaiting permits from federal and state agencies to proceed with the tunnel project.
Enbridge maintains that Line 5 is safe and that the tunnel project would enhance the safety of the pipeline segment. However, opponents of Line 5, including Liz Kirkwood, executive director of the Michigan-based legal nonprofit For Love of Water, strongly disagree. Kirkwood emphasizes the importance of transitioning away from fossil fuels towards a more sustainable and equitable future.
In addition to the ongoing legal battles, the Michigan Supreme Court is set to consider a lawsuit next month filed by tribes and environmental groups seeking to overturn an existing state permit related to Line 5. The outcome of these legal proceedings will have far-reaching implications for the future of Line 5 and the protection of the Great Lakes.
The tribal nation in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula remains steadfast in its commitment to safeguarding the environment and protecting the waters of the Great Lakes. As the legal battles continue to unfold, it is clear that the tribe will continue to advocate for the preservation of the Great Lakes and the well-being of its community.
