In a significant decision for federal court procedures, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the 30-day deadline specified in 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) for removing cases from state to federal court is mandatory. The ruling was part of the Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel case, where the court determined that the deadline is not subject to equitable tolling and must be strictly adhered to as part of congressional mandate.
The dispute originated when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a state lawsuit against Enbridge in 2019 to require the shutdown of the “Line 5” pipeline. The case drew attention due to its high economic and political stakes, given the pipeline’s critical role in supplying crude oil and propane to the region, including Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Quebec.
After failing to meet the initial deadline, Enbridge’s attempt to move the case to federal court came 857 days late. The district court had permitted the removal based on what it viewed as “exceptional circumstances,” but this decision was overturned on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which ruled that the deadline could not be tolled. The Supreme Court has now concurred with this view, stating that district courts lack the discretion to extend this deadline for equitable reasons, as mandated by Congress.
Chief Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous court, took a firm stance by emphasizing that, aside from exceptions expressly mentioned within the statute itself, the 30-day period must be strictly observed. The decision aligns with prior interpretations of previous appellate rulings, maintaining uniformity in deadlines across jurisdictions.
This ruling holds pivotal implications for legal practitioners handling federal court removals, reinforcing the inflexible nature of such statutory timelines. The detailed opinion of the court is thoroughly dissected in the full analysis available on SCOTUSblog.