News

On Tuesday, February 24, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Enbridge Energy v. Nessel, stemming from the State of Michigan’s fight to shut down the dangerous, aging 72-year-old Line 5 oil pipeline in the heart of the Great Lakes.

Activists, Tribal leaders, and attorneys at the forefront of the movement to shut down Line 5 are traveling from Michigan to the capital to witness this pivotal case in the nation’s highest court of law. The court's decision could determine whether Michigan's future is shaped by Michigan courts after years of legal advocacy from Attorney General Dana Nessel.

As the State of Michigan tries to shut down North America’s most dangerous fossil fuel pipeline – owned by a Canadian corporation with a track record of pollution – from operating in the Great Lakes because it violates the public trust, attorneys for the state will argue that the case rightfully belongs in state court. Enbridge failed to honor the 30-day deadline to remove this case from state to federal court while taking well over a year to do so. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued in 2024, which reversed an earlier ruling from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan in favor of Enbridge. The State of Michigan argues that Enbridge wants the case to be heard in federal court because the fossil fuel giant received a negative ruling in state court.

The Supreme Court is deciding which court gets to hear the case (state vs. federal). That's procedurally a "venue" question.

But here's why it matters so much:

Different courts, different outcomes - Enbridge removed the case to federal court specifically because they think federal courts will be more sympathetic to fossil fuel companies than Michigan state courts

• It's a delay tactic - While this venue fight drags on for years, the pipeline keeps running
• Sets huge precedent - If the Supreme Court lets Enbridge ignore the 30-day deadline, every fossil fuel company in America gets a roadmap for avoiding state courts whenever they're losing
• The merits never get heard - Michigan has been trying to argue that Line 5 violates the public trust for over 5 years. This venue battle is preventing that actual case from ever being decided.

Michigan's Public Trust Doctrine: A Brief Explanation

Michigan's public trust doctrine is an ancient common law principle—nearly 2,000 years old—that says the state holds the bottomlands of the Great Lakes—the lakebed itself—in trust for all the people. Think of it like a permanent guardianship: the state doesn't own these lands for its own benefit, but holds them on behalf of current and future generations.

This isn't just tradition—it's backed by Michigan's Constitution. Article IV, Section 52 declares that "the conservation and development of the natural resources of the state are hereby declared to be of paramount public concern" and mandates that "the legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment and destruction." In other words, protecting the Great Lakes isn't optional for Michigan—it's a constitutional duty.

Under this doctrine, the public has fundamental rights to these waters and bottomlands for navigation, fishing, recreation, and other public uses. The state can't simply give away or privatize these resources for private gain.

How it relates to corporations

When a private corporation—like Enbridge—wants to use public bottomlands for profit (by installing a pipeline, for example), it needs more than just a permit. It needs to prove that:

• The use serves a genuine public purpose, not just corporate profit
• It doesn't substantially impair the public's rights to the resource
• There's no reasonable alternative that would cause less harm

The Line 5 Problem

Attorney General Dana Nessel's lawsuit argues that Line 5 violates the public trust because a 72-year-old pipeline carrying Canadian oil across Michigan's lakebed for a Canadian corporation's private profit isn't a legitimate public use, and the catastrophic risk it poses to drinking water for 40 million people fundamentally impairs the public's rights to clean water.

The Michigan Constitution requires the state to protect the Great Lakes from impairment and destruction. That's exactly what the Attorney General is trying to do.

In essence: the Great Lakes belong to the people, not to Enbridge's shareholders.