Federal Judge Slams Brakes On Michigan's Attempt To Shut Down Critical Line 5 Pipeline
A lengthy legal battle over the future of energy transit in the Great Lakes region reached a pivotal moment this week, as the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan ruled in favor of Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership.
The court granted Enbridge's motion for summary judgment, effectively blocking the State of Michigan's efforts to force a shutdown of the Line 5 pipeline.
The dispute dates back to 2020, when Michigan officials moved to revoke a decades-old easement allowing the dual pipelines to run along the lakebed of the Straits of Mackinac, the waterway connecting Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. The state sought to cease operations, citing safety concerns.
However, the federal court ruled that Michigan's actions overstepped its legal bounds, citing federal preemption on two distinct fronts.
According to the ruling, the attempt to close the line ran afoul of the Pipeline Safety Act. The court determined that this federal law grants exclusive authority to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to set safety standards for interstate infrastructure.
The judge concluded that Michigan had "unlawfully" attempted to regulate the safety of Line 5 by trying to shut it down, noting that a state cannot impose its own safety standards on an interstate pipeline that is already under federal jurisdiction.
Beyond domestic regulations, the court found that Michigan's move conflicted with international diplomacy. Line 5 is subject to a transit pipeline treaty between the United States and Canada.
The ruling emphasized that the United States maintains an express policy favoring the uninterrupted flow of oil through international lines. Consequently, the court held that a state-compelled shutdown would "blatantly defy" federal foreign policy.
The Department of Justice, which filed a statement of interest in the case in September via its Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) and Civil Division, applauded the decision as a defense of federal authority.
"This ruling by the court reaffirms the federal government's unique responsibilities in regulating interstate pipelines and enforcing international treaties," said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the ENRD.
Gustafson indicated that the administration intends to vigorously defend federal jurisdiction over energy infrastructure moving forward.
"If a state exceeds its authority to disrupt the flow of energy, we will step in to re-assert the federal government's prerogative," Gustafson stated. "President Trump has set America on a strong, winning path toward securing energy dominance. This ruling undergirds that effort."