Supreme Court Forecloses Equitable Tolling of §1446(b)(1) Removal Deadline in Interstate Pipeline Dispute
Supreme Court held the 30-day removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) cannot be equitably tolled, affirming the Sixth Circuit's remand of Michigan AG's suit seeking shutdown of Enbridge's Line 5 Straits of Mackinac crossing after Enbridge waited 887 days to remove to federal court. The ruling forecloses equitable tolling arguments even where removal is predicated on federal preemption and Grable federal-question jurisdiction in interstate pipeline disputes.
Background
Michigan's Attorney General filed suit in state court seeking to shut down a 4-mile segment of Enbridge Energy, LP's Line 5 pipeline crossing the Straits of Mackinac. Enbridge waited 887 days after the complaint was filed before attempting to remove the case to federal district court.
The company argued removal was proper under federal-question jurisdiction, asserting both federal preemption of state law claims and Grable jurisdiction—the doctrine permitting removal where state-law claims necessarily raise substantial federal issues. Enbridge contended the dispute over Line 5's continued operation implicated federal energy policy and interstate commerce concerns sufficient to support federal jurisdiction.
The Removal Timing Dispute
The central issue was whether the strict 30-day removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) could be equitably tolled to excuse Enbridge's 887-day delay. Enbridge argued that equitable tolling should apply given the federal interests at stake in interstate pipeline regulation and the purportedly federal nature of the underlying dispute.
The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument and remanded the case to state court.
Supreme Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit's remand order, holding that the 30-day removal deadline in §1446(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling. The Court's ruling establishes that the statutory removal window operates as a firm deadline that cannot be extended through equitable principles, regardless of the federal interests implicated in the underlying dispute.
The decision forecloses arguments that the nature of the dispute—even one involving federal preemption claims or substantial federal questions under Grable—can justify deviation from the statutory removal timeline. The Court rejected Enbridge's contention that interstate pipeline disputes implicating federal energy policy warrant special treatment under removal procedures.
Implications for Energy Infrastructure Litigation
The ruling has immediate consequences for defendants in state-court litigation involving energy infrastructure, particularly those facing challenges to pipeline operations and other interstate energy projects. Defendants must now strictly comply with the 30-day removal deadline in §1446(b)(1), as no equitable exceptions will excuse late removal regardless of the federal issues involved.