Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel

608 U. S. 67 (2026) · 4/22/26

Because 28 U. S. C. §1446(b)(1)’s text, structure, and context are inconsistent with equitable tolling, Enbridge’s removal of the case to federal court outside the statute’s 30-day deadline was untimely.

Petitioners (collectively Enbridge) own and operate Line 5, a 645-mile petroleum pipeline, 4 miles of which traverse the Straits of Mackinac pursuant to a 1953 easement granted to Enbridge's predecessor by the State of Michigan. On June 27, 2019, the Michigan Attorney General fled suit in Michigan state court seeking to halt Enbridge's operation of Line 5 by having the 1953 easement declared void and Enbridge's continuing operations declared unlawful. Enbridge was served with the complaint on July 12, 2019. Rather than removing the case to federal court within the 30-day deadline required by…

Held: Because § 1446(b)(1)'s text, structure, and context are inconsistent with equitable tolling, Enbridge's removal was untimely. Pp. 75–84. (a) The fact that the 30-day removal deadline in § 1446(b)(1) is nonjurisdictional does not automatically render it subject to equitable tolling. While jurisdictional requirements “cannot be waived or forfeited” and “do not allow for equitable exceptions,” Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U. S. 199, 203, “[t]he mere fact that a time limit lacks jurisdictional force . . . does not render it malleable in every respect,” Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586…