Supreme Court to decide whether shutting down Michigan pipeline is a state or federal fight
Nessel sued in state court in June 2019 seeking to void the easement that allows the Enbridge energy company to operate a 4.5-mile (6.4-kilometer) section of pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, which link Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.
She won a restraining order shutting down the pipeline from Ingham County Judge James Jamo in June 2020, although Enbridge was allowed to continue operations after meeting safety requirements.
The company moved the lawsuit into federal court in 2021, arguing it affects U.S. and Canadian trade. But a three-judge panel from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to Jamo in June 2024, finding that Enbridge missed a 30-day deadline to change jurisdictions.
On Monday, the Supreme Court did not explain its rationale for taking up the matter.
Enbridge officials said in a statement that they were encouraged by the Supreme Court's choice, noting that exceptions to the 30-day deadline exist.
Nessel spokesperson Kimberly Bush said the lawsuit belongs in a Michigan court. The attorney general's lawyers have argued that the case invokes the public trust doctrine, a concept in state law holding that natural resources belong to the public.
The pipeline at issue, Line 5, has moved crude oil and natural gas liquids between Superior, Wisconsin, and Sarnia, Ontario, since 1953. Concerns over the section beneath the straits rupturing and causing a catastrophic spill have been growing since 2017, when Enbridge engineers revealed they had known about gaps in the section's protective coating since 2014. A boat anchor damaged the section in 2018, intensifying fears of a spill.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources under Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer revoked the straits easement for Line 5 in 2020. Enbridge has filed a separate federal lawsuit challenging the revocation.
The company is seeking permits to encase the section of pipeline beneath the straits in a protective tunnel. The Michigan Public Service Commission granted the relevant permits in 2023, but Enbridge still needs approval from from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy.
The pipeline is at the center of a legal dispute in Wisconsin as well. A federal judge in Madison last summer gave Enbridge three years to shut down part of Line 5 that runs across the Bad River Band of Lake Superior's reservation. The company has proposed rerouting the pipeline around the reservation and has appealed the shutdown order to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Washington has crushed Trump's Maga revolution
New presidential administrations often spur talk of revolution in Washington, and that goes double for Donald Trump. Supporters promise an end to the old politics; opponents warn of the end of America as we've known it. But the minute anything needs to be done through Congress, the forces of politics as usual reassert themselves. So it is with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. The gigantic tax and budget bill isn't just the centrepiece of Trump's legislative agenda. Given the narrow Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the power of the Senate filibuster to block party-line bills outside of the tax and budget context, and the disinterest of all sides in forging bipartisan compromise, the bill is likely to be Trump's entire legislative agenda for 2025-26. There was a lot of talk about how the bill would do big, dramatic things and break with Republican policies of the past in favour of a new, populist agenda. Perhaps, Trump suggested, Republicans would raise taxes on the wealthy. There was fierce lobbying to undo some provisions of the 2017 Trump tax bill. But the forces of political gravity are not so easily defied. From the beginning, Republicans understood that this was a must-pass bill. Without it, not only would many of the 2017 tax cuts expire, but the GOP would likely miss the opportunity to satisfy priorities such as funding more immigration enforcement. In the end, the bill passed the House by just one vote, 215-214 (with two Republicans voting no and three others absent or abstaining), and did the same in the Senate, with vice-president JD Vance casting the 51-50 tiebreaker (with three Republicans voting no). The bill's passage followed a 'vote-a-thon' of record length in the Senate, as Senators voted down one amendment after another. When a must-pass bill needs every single yes vote to pass, that's a lot of people who have to be appeased or outright paid off. If the House baulks at the Senate's changes, the same dynamic is apt to repeat itself. So, the broad outlines of the bill look a lot more like traditional conservative policymaking with some Trump flavouring. Tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy are preserved, and coupled with working-class tax relief such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and car loans. There's more money for warships and other weapons, and also for the tools of border enforcement (a wall, more agents, and more detention facilities). Poverty programmes such as Medicaid are subjected to work requirements, tightened eligibility rules, and restrictions on benefits for immigrants. The bill cuts back on subsidies for student-loan repayments and green energy. Republican moderates got their own concessions. The deduction for state and local taxes, which effectively subsidises high-tax blue states, was raised from $10,000 to $40,000 (at significant cost to the budget deficit) to secure a few votes from blue-state Republicans, mainly in the northeast. The child tax credit was expanded, which amounts to a payout to many lower-income taxpayers. Alaska was given more generous treatment in some benefits programmes once Senator Lisa Murkowski's vote became a must-have. Hospital and nursing-home lobbies made out like bandits. Fiscal hawks who wanted deeper spending cuts are instead presented with a bill that does nothing to alter the debt-ridden nation's grim fiscal trajectory. Other conservative ambitions were scaled back or ended on the cutting room floor. Abortion giant Planned Parenthood was defunded from the Medicaid programme – a long-time goal of pro-lifers – but the Senate cut the duration of that defunding to one year. The Senate version also cut out plans to ban Medicaid funding for gender transitions, sell public lands in the West, tax third-party funding of lawsuits, or prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence or giving state-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants. A Senate effort to reduce the federal subsidy for Obamacare health insurance plans was scrapped. The end result is a bill nobody likes – which is how lawmaking in Washington usually works. Among Republicans, only the handful of purist fiscal conservatives casting 'no' votes are truly at peace with their votes. Trump and Vance can doubtless sell the deal to Maga diehards as a necessity, and the donor class will be pleased. Democrats are back in their happy place, complaining that Republicans are cutting taxes on the rich and paying for it with welfare cuts for the poor – a hymn they've been singing since the 1930s. Voters instinctively dislike the bill because it's huge and messy, but that's precisely why they're unlikely to remember much about it a year and a half from now at midterm election time other than the Medicaid cuts, which Democrats aim to make the centrepiece of their campaigns. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Zohran Mamdani isn't as clever as he thinks
A bizarre obsession with the Palestinian issue continues to poison progressive politics – including (surprise!) the campaign of Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic nominee for New York's mayoral race has refused to condemn the phrase 'globalise the intifada', despite sharp criticism from fellow Democrats. The phrase, seen by many as a call for violence against Jews, is actually 'a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights,' said Mamdani, not long before his surprising win. Then, this past weekend, he again declined to decry the phrase. Instead, he meekly noted 'that's not language that I use,' on the news show Meet the Press, before adding that he would serve as a mayor 'that protects Jewish New Yorkers' if ultimately elected in November. Mamdani's equivocations are hardly surprising. Presumably he thinks he's being clever by attempting to reassure Jewish voters, while signalling a quiet approval for some of the darkest rhetoric of the Palestinian cause. But he has actually exposed how sinister his campaign really is. He's made championing Palestinian nationalism a cornerstone of his political career – despite (beyond his Muslim faith) having very little in common with most Palestinians. The son of an Oscar-nominated film-maker mother and university professor father, Mamdani – like so many who voted for him last week – is the product of privilege, with scant experience in politics or holding a job, let alone of real 'oppression'. He exists in a world of feelings and vibes – in place of consequence or facts. And Mamdani has given every indication of believing that calling for 'intifada' – despite its clear association with bus bombings, knife attacks and thousands of Jewish dead (it means uprising in Arabic and is used to refer to two periods of Palestinian violence against Israelis) – is legitimate political discourse. The investor Bill Ackman – who helped take down former Harvard president Claudine Gay – took to X on Monday to ask: 'What if someone called for the killing or suicide bombings of those of a different ethnic background, Zohran, would you not be willing to condemn such a call to violent action? Or is it just for the Jews that you remain silent?' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joined the attack, saying Mamdani would 'have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward,' during a weekend appearance on ABC's This Week. 'Globalising the intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrasing.' Both Ackman and Jeffries could not be more correct. That too many progressives accept effective calls for violence against Jews that they would never tolerate for other ethnicities is not just limited to phrases like 'globalise the intifada'. The double-standard reflects the entire pro-Palestinian movement since the Hamas attack on Israel two Octobers ago. The violent encampments in cities like New York, the wide-scale property damage and, now, the numerous deaths in the United States directly attributed to anti-Semitism somehow avoid the type of critique heaped upon even the most minor affronts against, say, African-Americans or sexual minorities. In 2020, recall that New York Times opinion editor James Bennet resigned after the paper published an op-ed by Republican Senator Tom Cotton that some black staffers felt made them unsafe, merely because it suggested calling in the National Guard during the height of the Black Lives Matter protests. Mamdani, meanwhile, continues to campaign as the Democrat nominee despite refusing to condemn a phrase that Jews rightly perceive as a call for their murder. Will Mamdani eventually clarify his position? Don't hold your breath. Like so many on the extreme-Left, Mamdani exists within a bubble of impunity that ascribes negative motives to anyone who criticises its stances. Question the morality of phrases like 'intifada', goes the thinking, and you're a 'Zionist' whose opinion can be safely discounted. Malicious equivocation is also a veritable party trick for Mamdani. He has refused to say that he supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation. He's said he supports its right to exist 'as a state with equal rights'. But he has added that 'I'm not comfortable supporting any state that has a hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion or anything else'. We've heard this all before – including from Mamdani's own mother, director Mira Nair, who in 2013 refused to participate in the Haifa International Film festival, saying she would 'go to Israel when the state does not privilege one religion over another'. They conveniently ignore the Muslims and people of other faiths who do, in fact, enjoy equal rights in Israel. Perhaps I've also missed their criticism of the numerous nations that actually do oppress minority religions – either in practice or in law. Saudi Arabia prohibits the public worship of any religion other than Islam. Across much of the Middle East, countries once known for their religious diversity are no longer safe for Jews or Christians. Why are the likes of Mamdani allowed by their interviewers to get away with it? However overwhelmed and underprepared they are, they must know that they are not dealing with normal politicians, but radicals for whom the obsession with Israel has become almost a pathology. Many New York voters – including my fellow New York Jews – have failed to see through Mamdani. But now he has to win over the wider New York electorate, not just the Democratic base. Let's hope that we don't have to wait for him to put his agenda into practice before everyone wakes up to the truth.
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The US has just exposed the green industry's dirty little secret
The cat is out of the bag. Electricity made from renewable sources is not as 'cheap' as its advocates sometimes claim. It evidently cannot survive without billions annually in tax credits. That's the message from the latest skirmish over America's renewable energy future, where the House and Senate have unveiled duelling visions for the rollback of energy tax credits – each with its own tempo and tone. The vitriolic reaction from the green lobby, and the predictions of disaster for renewables should any of these changes be passed into law, have exposed just how economically unsustainable even the fiercest backers of these energy sources clearly accept them to be. Supporters of renewable energy have assured us for years that the wind blows and the sun shines free of charge. But although these technologies have received hundreds of billions in subsidies globally over the past 20 years, proponents still demand more – for a few years, we're told, until renewables can stand on their own feet. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: 'Eliminating these tax credits radically and irresponsibly rolls back all the progress we have made in recent years. It turns America's clean energy boom into a bust.' But the boom was always something of an illusion. It is often asserted that electricity in the United States made with wind and solar is less expensive than electricity made by natural gas and coal. But rather than declining, average American electricity prices have risen considerably over the past 20 years as wind and solar have entered the electricity mix. One dirty little secret is that, on a state-by-state basis, nine out of the top 10 states in electricity prices in the United States in 2024 required renewable energy as part of their electricity mix. The bottom 10 states generally did not require renewable energy. It can cost utility companies more to provide people with electricity using intermittent sources than continuous sources such as natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. The utility company is likely to need to put other energy sources in place, to provide back-up should demand not be met when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. For instance, when the wind stops, an alternative such as a natural gas power plant will likely need to be turned on to meet demand. Then it's turned off when the wind starts. With America's low natural gas prices, it is always likely to be cheaper to have one set of equipment and to operate one power plant continuously, rather than having it sit idle as the wind blows. Taxpayers are paying multiple times for renewables. In their electricity bills, they pay not only for wind and solar, but for the backups to the wind and solar. In their tax bills, they pay for the energy tax credits. They also give up faster economic growth when electricity prices rise. Another dirty secret is that renewable energy is often neither green nor clean. About 70 per cent of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and their components are made in China, which remains reliant on coal-fired power plants to fuel its industries. Wind turbines kill birds, and, when offshore, can harm sea mammals. Solar power can take over agricultural land, which is likely to drive up the price of food. Green and clean are marketing hype used to push renewables onto unsuspecting consumers. While both chambers agree on tightening the purse strings by reducing tax credits, the House opts for a cliff-edge approach, while the Senate favours a more gradual wind-down. The House draws a hard line at Dec 31, 2025. From clean vehicles to home energy upgrades, nearly all credits vanish at the stroke of midnight. Even the clean hydrogen and nuclear incentives face sharp cut-offs, with added restrictions on foreign influence. Transferability of credits? Many are axed. The message is clear: the era of generous subsidies is fast ending. The Senate, by contrast, offers a more calibrated exit. Clean vehicle credits expire by Sep 30, 2025, but major production and investment credits are phased out over years, some as late as 2036. The Senate also tightens rules on foreign entities, but with more nuanced thresholds and timelines. Both bills close ranks on national security. Credits are denied to entities with ties to China, Russia, and other adversaries. The clean hydrogen credit in the House bill expires at the end of this year, but in the Senate bill by the end of 2027. Carbon capture faces identical construction cut-offs and foreign ownership bans. But only the House repeals credit transferability, an investor-friendly feature the Senate preserves. With the end of these tax credits, Americans may well discover that the true costs of renewable energy are higher than utility companies are willing to bear. Developers are already saying that they will halt projects without the tax credits. If the age of renewable energy tax credits is drawing to a close, Americans will be the beneficiaries. The question is how abruptly Washington will pull the plug – and whether other countries will follow.
