Listen to this post

The Supreme Court recently decided Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (No. 24-783), holding that the equitable tolling doctrine cannot be invoked to extend the 30-day deadline for removing a case from state to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The decision clarifies the finality of removal decisions and reinforces the availability of federal jurisdiction based on the procedural framework Congress enacted—not equitable exceptions fashioned by the courts.

As discussed in Dykema’s March 2026 edition, this case presented a narrow question of statutory interpretation arising from the long-running dispute between Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Enbridge Energy over the continued operation of the Line 5 oil and gas pipeline (connecting Lake Michigan and Lake Huron) beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Enbridge removed the case to federal court more than two years after being served with the complaint. The federal district court, nevertheless, denied Michigan’s motion to remand the case back to state court, concluding that the 30-day deadline in § 1446(b) could be equitably tolled under the circumstances. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Congress did not authorize equitable tolling of the removal deadline.

On April 22, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. Writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor first explained that although § 1446(b)’s deadline is non-jurisdictional—and, therefore, theoretically susceptible to equitable exceptions—that characteristic alone does not answer whether Congress authorized equitable tolling in this statutory scheme. Instead, the Court undertook a traditional textual and structural analysis and concluded that the text, structure, and context of § 1446(b) demonstrate that Congress did not intend equitable tolling to apply.

Central to the Court’s analysis was Congress’s decision to include specific statutory exceptions to the 30-day deadline. In keeping with the legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius (meaning “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another”), the Court reasoned that, by expressly identifying the circumstances in which removal may occur outside the ordinary deadline, Congress signaled its intent to foreclose additional judge-made exceptions. The Court further emphasized that the removal statute serves an important procedural function by requiring defendants to resolve the forum question at the outset of the litigation. Permitting equitable tolling would undermine that objective by allowing removal after substantial state court proceedings had already occurred, thereby frustrating the statute’s interest in procedural certainty and judicial efficiency.

Enbridge argued that § 1446 functions as a statute of limitations and, therefore, carries a rebuttable presumption in favor of equitable tolling. The Court declined to resolve that broader question because it concluded that, even assuming such a presumption applied, it was overcome by the statutory text, structure, and context demonstrating Congress’s contrary intent. As the Court observed, plaintiffs who sue in state court usually can be confident that, after §1446(b)(1)’s deadline has elapsed, the forum question has been put to rest and the case will proceed in the chosen court.”

Takeaways

  • Removal Deadlines Are Firm. The Court’s decision makes clear that the 30-day deadline in § 1446 is subject only to the exceptions Congress expressly enacted. Courts may not invoke equitable tolling to excuse an untimely removal, even in circumstances where equitable considerations might otherwise appear compelling. Defendants considering removal, therefore, must evaluate federal jurisdiction promptly upon service and closely monitor the statutory deadline.
  • Congress, Not the Courts, Defines Removal Procedure. More broadly, the decision reflects the Court’s continued insistence that procedural rules governing access to federal court are controlled by statutory text and structure. Even when equitable doctrines are generally available, they yield when Congress has demonstrated an intent to provide an exclusive procedural framework.
  • Line 5 Litigation Returns to State Court. As a practical consequence, this portion of the long-running litigation over the Line 5 pipeline will now resume in Michigan state court after several years of federal proceedings.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Andrew VanEgmond, or Sadie Betting.