A Technical Question Before the Supreme Court Could Seal Fate of Line 5 Pipeline

"The case dates to a 2019 lawsuit by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who moved to shut down the pipeline by revoking the easement that allows it to cross the Straits, citing risks to the Great Lakes. (Over its 73-year lifetime, Line 5 has spilled over a million gallons of oil along its inland route.)"

"A shutdown is supported by all 12 federally recognized tribes in Michigan, though they are not involved in the suit. Many tribal nations say the pipeline threatens their waters, treaty rights, and ways of life."

"Though the question before the Supreme Court is a procedural one - whether courts can excuse Enbridge from missing the deadline to request moving the case to federal court - the justices recognized that the decision could have far-reaching ripples, including for U.S.-Canada relations."

The U.S. Supreme Court examined a procedural question regarding jurisdiction over the Line 5 pipeline case, which originated from a 2019 lawsuit by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel seeking to shut down the pipeline by revoking its easement. The pipeline carries crude oil and natural gas liquids across the Straits of Mackinac and has spilled over one million gallons of oil during its 73-year operation. All 12 federally recognized Michigan tribes support the shutdown, citing threats to their waters, treaty rights, and ways of life. The justices posed challenging questions to both the state's legal team and Enbridge Energy's lawyers. The decision carries significant implications beyond the immediate case, including potential effects on U.S.-Canada relations, as the Canadian government opposes the shutdown since Line 5 supplies half of Ontario and Quebec's oil.

Read at Truthout