571 F.Supp.3d 851
W.D. Mich.2021Background
- In 1953 Michigan granted an easement to Lakehead (now Enbridge) to lay and operate two 20-inch pipelines across state-owned bottomlands in the Straits of Mackinac; Line 5 was completed in 1953.
- On November 13, 2020 Michigan issued a Notice revoking the 1953 Easement and filed suit in state court seeking declaratory relief (public-trust claim, breach of easement, and effect of a 2018 agreement) and an injunction to cease Line 5 operations and decommission the Straits pipelines.
- Enbridge removed the state action to federal court and separately sued the State in federal court asserting federal claims under the Supremacy Clause, the Commerce Clauses, the Pipeline Safety Act, and the 1977 U.S.-Canada Transit Pipelines Treaty.
- The State moved to remand, arguing the State-law claims do not raise federal questions; Enbridge argued removal is proper because the State’s asserted property rights are burdened by federal law (Treaty, Pipeline Safety Act, Submerged Lands Act).
- The Government of Canada invoked the 1977 Treaty dispute-resolution procedure; the court accepted supplemental briefs and analyzed removal under the Grable substantial-federal-question framework.
- The court denied the motion to remand, concluding the state-law claims necessarily raise actually disputed and substantial federal issues and that exercising jurisdiction would not upset the federal-state balance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removability: whether federal-question jurisdiction supports removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 / Grable | State: claims are pure state-law and provable without federal law; remand required | Enbridge: state claims necessarily turn on federal law (Treaty, Pipeline Safety Act, Submerged Lands Act) | Court: removal proper; federal-question jurisdiction exists and remand denied |
| Whether state-law claims necessarily raise federal issues | State: no federal issue is required to resolve easement validity, breach, or 2018 agreement | Enbridge: scope of State’s property rights is burdened and defined by federal law (Treaty and federal statutes) | Court: found federal issues embedded in the state claims (Treaty and Pipeline Safety Act implicated) |
| Whether the embedded federal issues are actually disputed and substantial | State: disputes are fact-bound and situation-specific, not substantial | Enbridge: issues implicate federal regulatory scheme and international commitments; resolution could end the case | Court: federal issues are actually disputed and substantial (PHMSA role and Canada’s treaty invocation strengthen substantiality) |
| Whether federal jurisdiction would disturb the federal-state judicial balance | State: ruling for Enbridge would open door to many easement disputes in federal court | Enbridge: jurisdiction is limited to cases requiring federal statutory/treaty interpretation | Court: exercising jurisdiction would not unduly disturb the balance; Grable factors support federal forum |
Key Cases Cited
- Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (establishes narrow substantial-federal-question test for state-law claims raising federal issues)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (federal forum justified where state claim turns on significant federal issues)
- Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180 (1921) (classic example of state claim presenting a federal constitutional issue)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question removal)
- Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp., 501 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2007) (narrow reading of substantial-federal-question jurisdiction)
- Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006) (substantial-federal-question jurisdiction is a slim category to be read narrowly)
- Miller v. Bruenger, 949 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2020) (example where federal indicia were insufficient to sustain federal-question jurisdiction)
- Estate of Cornell v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 908 F.3d 1008 (6th Cir. 2018) (remanded where federal issue was not especially important to federal government)
- Ohio ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 549 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2008) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction and removal statutes are strictly construed)