Episode
Oral Argument Re-Listen: Enbridge v. Nessel | Deadline Drama and Treaty Tensions
- Podcast
- The High Court Report
- Published
- Apr 26, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 3813
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/the-high-court-report-7304353/episodes/oral-argument-re-listen-enbridge-v-nessel-deadline-drama-and-treaty-tensions/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353/oral-argument-re-listen-enbridge-v-nessel-deadline-drama-and-treaty-tensions.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
Enbridge Energy v. Nessel | Oral Argument: 2/24/2026 | Case No. 24-783 | Docket Link: Here | Decided: 4/22/26 Overview: Pipeline company removes Michigan environmental lawsuit to federal court two years late, claiming extraordinary circumstances involving international treaty and state forum manipulation justify extending statutory deadline. Question Presented: Can federal may extend the 30-day removal deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) for extraordinary circumstances. Posture: District court allowed late removal; Sixth Circuit reversed and ordered remand to state court. Holding: 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. Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion. No Justice authored a separate opinion. Result: Affirmed. Nessel wins. Opinion: Here Majority Reasoning: (1) Statutory exceptions throughout removal law demonstrate Congress rejected general equitable tolling; (2) Mandatory language requires strict deadline enforcement; (3) Efficiency concerns counsel against case-by-case deadline extensions through judicial discretion. Implications: Companies lose flexibility to move cases to federal court after missing statutory deadlines. State courts retain jurisdiction over environmental and regulatory disputes even when federal issues arise later. Forum selection becomes permanent within thirty days of service regardless of extraordinary circumstances. Main Arguments: • Enbridge (Petitioner): (1) Equitable tolling presumption applies to all non-jurisdictional filing deadlines; (2) Congressional exceptions elsewhere don't preclude judicial flexibility here; (3) International treat…