Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel · ¶32

Enbridge's counterarguments are not persuasive. It starts by attempting to raise the bar for rebutting the presumption of equitable tolling. In its view, it is not enough to show that tolling is inconsistent with the overall statutory scheme; the question is instead whether Congress has provided the “ `clearest command' ” that equitable tolling should not apply. Brief for Petitioners 32 (quoting Holland v. Flor ida, 560 U. S. 631, 646 (2010)). This Court, however, has never applied such a requirement in this context, and doing so would confict with the Court's repeated holdings that the presumption has been rebutted where “Congress's choice is evident,” Arellano, 598 U. S., at 14, where tolling would be “inconsistent with the text of the relevant statute,” Beggerly, 524 U. S., at 48, and where there is “good reason to believe that Congress did not want the equitable tolling doctrine to…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.