{"argument_date":"2026-02-24T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2026-02-24T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2025","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","paragraphs":["Enbridge's lawyer argued federal courts retain traditional equitable authority to excuse the 30-day removal deadline. He described the case as arising from state officials' attempt to use state court proceedings to shut down an international pipeline.","Michigan's lawyer argued Enbridge missed Congress's express, mandatory 30-day removal deadline by over two years. She said Enbridge seeks an atextual escape hatch and that the presumption of equitable tolling does not apply.","Justice Sotomayor questioned what right Enbridge loses, saying she does not know that a right to have a federal court try the case is a right.","Justice Jackson asked whether the deadline is functionally a statute of limitations or whether that distinction does not matter for the analysis. She suggested the dispute seems like shifting forums rather than losing rights."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 11, lines 29-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 15-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 12, lines 15-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 12, lines 27-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 13, lines 19-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 29-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 14, lines 29-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 53-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 14, lines 53-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 51-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 15, lines 51-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 29-51","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 16, lines 29-51"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 11-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 23-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 21-55","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 40, lines 21-55"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 25-27"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 65, lines 49-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-35","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 7, lines 27-35"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 23-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 71, lines 23-27"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 8, lines 21-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 33-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 9, lines 33-7"}]}],"caption":"Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:13.841332Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"},{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:13.857273Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"},{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T23:55:35.522123Z","explanation":"An official Court opinion was verified.","status":"decided"},{"changed_at":"2026-08-30T01:34:01.452959Z","explanation":"An official Court opinion was verified.","status":"decided"}],"case_status":"decided","dek":"Enbridge Energy missed the 30-day deadline for moving its pipeline dispute from Michigan state court to federal court. The company asks the Supreme Court to let federal courts use equitable powers to excuse that delay. Michigan's attorney general says Congress set a mandatory deadline that courts cannot override.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 23-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 21-55","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 40, lines 21-55"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 65, lines 49-21"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2026-02-24T00:00:00Z","maturity":"post_opinion","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2025","official_disposition_urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/608us1r28_i4dk.pdf"],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-783.html","primary_docket":"24-783","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-29T22:19:12.475095Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.","created_at":"2026-08-29T23:48:24.722996Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2},{"correction_note":"Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.","created_at":"2026-08-30T00:16:28.915185Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":3},{"correction_note":"Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.","created_at":"2026-08-30T01:34:01.477855Z","maturity":"post_opinion","revision_number":4},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"post_opinion","revision_number":5}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["Enbridge Energy operates an international pipeline serving energy customers in the United States and Canada. Michigan officials sought to shut the pipeline down through state court proceedings. Enbridge moved the case to federal court more than two years after the 30-day deadline Congress set for removal. The dispute now asks whether federal courts can excuse that missed deadline."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 23-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 21-55","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 40, lines 21-55"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 65, lines 49-21"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["A lower court rejected Enbridge's attempt to move the case. Enbridge asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision. Michigan asked the Court to affirm the lower court's ruling."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 11-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 23-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 71, lines 23-27"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["Enbridge wants the Supreme Court to hold that federal courts keep their traditional equitable authority to excuse the 30-day removal deadline. It argues this flexibility lets a federal court hear its pipeline case despite the delay.","Michigan's attorney general wants the Supreme Court to reject that request. She argues Enbridge seeks an escape hatch from Congress's express, mandatory 30-day deadline. She says the presumption of equitable tolling does not apply here."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 23-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 21-55","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 40, lines 21-55"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 65, lines 49-21"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["Enbridge frames the case as state officials using state court proceedings to shut down an international pipeline. It says federal courts should retain equitable power to excuse the missed deadline.","Michigan argues Congress set an express, mandatory deadline. It says missing that deadline by over two years should end the removal effort."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 23-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 21-55","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 40, lines 21-55"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 65, lines 49-21"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Roberts asked about a different interest involved in the case.","Justice Thomas asked why the case was not removed, calling the proceedings basically the same case. And Asked whether the Court has applied the relevant presumption in a removal case before. A justice's question is not a vote. Oral argument is not a decision."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 11, lines 29-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 15-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 12, lines 15-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 12, lines 27-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 13, lines 19-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 29-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 14, lines 29-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 53-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 14, lines 53-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 51-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 15, lines 51-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 29-51","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 16, lines 29-51"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 25-27"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-35","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 7, lines 27-35"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 23-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 71, lines 23-27"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 8, lines 21-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 33-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 9, lines 33-7"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["The ruling will shape whether missed removal deadlines can be excused in cases moved from state to federal court. It will affect how strictly Congress's deadlines bind parties seeking a federal forum."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 23-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 21-55","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 40, lines 21-55"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 65, lines 49-21"}]},{"heading":"What the Court decided","paragraphs":["The 30-day deadline for removing a civil case to federal court is fixed and cannot be stretched for fairness reasons (a rule called equitable tolling). Enbridge waited far too long, so its removal was untimely.","The Sixth Circuit's judgment was affirmed, meaning Enbridge's late removal fails and the case goes back to the Michigan state court."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Opinion","label":"Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/608us1r28_i4dk.pdf","page_label":"file page 2, lines 1-1"}]}],"slug":"2025-24-783-enbridge-energy-lp-v-nessel","term":"2025","title":"Can Federal Courts Excuse a Missed Deadline for Moving a Case to Federal Court?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 23-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 21-55","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 40, lines 21-55"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf","page_label":"file page 65, lines 49-21"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":"latest_argument_date","updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}