Nessel Email Header




*FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:*

August 16, 2024




*Media Contact:
*Danny Wimmer <[email protected]>






*Federal Appeals Court Upholds Decision to Remand AG Nessel?s Line 5 Lawsuit to State Court, Denies Enbridge Request for Rehearing*





*LANSING* ? Today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Enbridge Energy?s request for a rehearing of its June decision to remand [ [link removed] ] back to a Michigan state court the Attorney General?s lawsuit to shut down Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac, announced Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. The federal Court was unpersuaded by Enbridge?s petition for rehearing" en banc", seeking to have the entire bench of judges in the Court of Appeals re-hear the case decided earlier this year by the usual appellate panel of three judges. The case, "Nessel v. Enbridge", will return to the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County before Judge James Jamo. ??

?Our lawsuit to shut down Line 5 belongs in state court, as the federal court of appeals ruled in June, and affirmed today,? said Nessel. ?It is a critical responsibility of the State to protect our Great Lakes from the threat of pollution. Our state claims, brought under our state law, will continue to be heard in a state court, and I am grateful we are one step closer to resolving this case on behalf of the state of Michigan.??

The Attorney General argued before the Sixth Circuit in March [ [link removed] ] that the case seeking to shut down the aging and dangerous oil pipeline must be sent back to state court, where it was originally filed and litigated for over a year. In that state court litigation, the Court agreed with AG Nessel [ [link removed] ] that Line 5 needed to be temporarily shut down after being struck by anchors or similar objects, and the court ordered a temporary shut down in the summer of 2020. Attorney General Nessel and the Canadian oil giant each?filed motions asking the state court to decide the case, but those motions were never decided because Enbridge then removed the case to federal court long after the deadline to do so had passed. ??

On appeal, Attorney General Nessel argued that Enbridge?s removal of the case to federal court was both late and improper. The federal trial court agreed [ [link removed] ] that the federal Court of Appeals should review this question. The Court of Appeals then granted [ [link removed] ] Nessel permission to appeal in July of 2023 before hearing oral arguments in March of this year. In June, the Court of Appeals agreed that Enbridge?s removal was untimely and ordered the case remanded back to state court. Enbridge requested a rehearing by the full bench of the Court of Appeals, which the Court denied today.

?

"###"

?






AG logo [ [link removed] ]





*Media Inquiries* <[email protected]>




*Latest Releases* [ [link removed] ]




*File a Complaint* [ [link removed] ]







________________________________________________________________________

Michigan Department of the Attorney General [ [link removed] ] ? Questions?
? Contact Us [ [link removed] ]

STAY CONNECTED: Visit us on Twitter [ [link removed] ] Instagram logo [ [link removed] ] Visit us on Facebook [ [link removed] ] YouTube [ [link removed] ] Sign up for email updates [ [link removed] ] ? ? ?

Bookmark and Share [ [link removed] ]

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES:
Manage Preferences [ [link removed] ]??|?Help [ [link removed] ]

________________________________________________________________________

This email was sent to [email protected] using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: Michigan Attorney General ? G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor?? 525 W. Ottawa St., P.O. Box 30212 ? Lansing, MI 48909?? 517-373-1100