Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel · ¶20
At the first step, there is rightly no dispute. “No one contends that [§ 1446(b)(1)] is jurisdictional,” given that “it `does not expressly refer to subject-matter jurisdiction or speak in jurisdictional terms.' ” McIntosh v. United States, 601 U. S. 330, 337 (2024); see 104 F. 4th, at 969 (explaining why § 1446(b)(1) is not jurisdictional). That much is crucial for Enbridge's case, as “[j]urisdictional requirements cannot be waived or forfeited, must be raised by courts sua sponte, and, as relevant to this case, do not allow for equitable exceptions.” Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U. S. 199, 203 (2022). “The mere fact that a time limit lacks jurisdictional force, however, does not render it malleable in every respect.” Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U. S. 188, 192 (2019). Some nonjurisdictional rules remain “mandatory” and “are not susceptible of the equitable approach” that…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.