WASHINGTON, D.C. (Michigan News Source) – The U.S. Supreme Court’s February schedule is shaping up as one of the most consequential for Michigan in years, setting the stage for decisions that could affect everything from property rights to how major environmental disputes reach federal court.
With arguments scheduled for Feb. 24 and Feb. 25, the justices will tackle a pair of cases grounded in Michigan’s legal landscape – one that could alter procedural rules nationwide and another that tests constitutional protections for homeowners.
Line 5 heads to the Supreme Court – on procedure, not policy.
MORE NEWS: As Detroit Hires More and More Workers, Budget Deficits Stack
On Feb. 24, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, a case with major implications for Michigan’s long-running legal battle over the Line 5 pipeline. At issue is not the merits of the pipeline dispute itself, but a procedural question: whether courts can create exceptions to the 30-day deadline Congress set for removing a case from state court to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
Last year, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Enbridge missed its chance to move their case to federal court. Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel filed the lawsuit in June 2019, but Enbridge did not attempt to remove it from state court until November 2021 – well beyond the deadline allowed under federal law. The lawsuit seeks to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline, alleging violations of Michigan public nuisance and environmental laws.
Enbridge, the Canadian pipeline giant, argues that it should be allowed to move Michigan litigation into federal jurisdiction despite missing that deadline. The Michigan Attorney General’s office opposes broad exceptions, arguing the timeline should be strictly enforced. The outcome could affect not only the Line 5 jurisdictional fight but also how timely procedural removals must be nationwide.
Takings and taxes: a Michigan property rights test.
On Feb. 25, the high court will turn to Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan, a case rooted in Michigan’s tax foreclosure practices and one that Michigan News Source reported on in October of last year. After Isabella County seized and sold a home to satisfy unpaid property taxes, it paid the estate only the surplus – not the full fair market value of the home. The Pung estate claims this violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause because the process extracted more value than necessary and left the estate shortchanged.
Lower courts rejected the notion that either constitutional protection applied, but the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case signals its willingness to revisit how broad these constitutional safeguards are in the context of tax foreclosures and local government actions. A ruling for Pung could reshape how municipalities across the country handle tax-lien foreclosures and protect property owners.
Why these cases matter for Michigan.
Both cases highlight different corners of constitutional law with real-world impacts in Michigan: one could influence whether federal courts can hear major environmental and interstate disputes like the Line 5 litigation, while the other may define constitutional limits on local governments’ authority in property tax enforcement. Together they underscore a Supreme Court term that could redefine procedural and substantive rights for individuals and businesses in Michigan and beyond.
