Can courts excuse late removals to federal court?

SCOTUSblog

by Bradley Joondeph

February 19, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to address a critical legal question in *Enbridge Energy LP v. Nessel*: whether district courts have the authority to extend the 30-day deadline for removing cases from state court to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) due to "excusable reasons." This case centers on Enbridge's delayed removal of a lawsuit filed by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, which seeks to shut down an oil pipeline. Enbridge initially opposed the suit in state court but later removed it to federal court after nearly three years, arguing exceptional circumstances justified the delay. The district court agreed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the 30-day deadline is absolute and not subject to equitable tolling. The backstory of the case reveals its high stakes. Nessel's lawsuit alleges environmental risks posed by Enbridge's pipeline, while Enbridge sought a federal forum they believed would be more favorable. The company timely removed another related suit filed by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer but faced pushback when attempting to remove Nessel's original case in December 2021, nearly two and a half years after it was filed. Enbridge argued that the delay was necessary due to ongoing litigation and the involvement of state and federal authorities. Enbridge contends that Section 1446(b)(1) does not explicitly prohibit equitable tolling and that courts should have discretion to extend deadlines in cases of "exceptional circumstances." They argue that the statute's silence on this issue suggests Congress intended for courts to have such authority. Enbridge points out that other statutory deadlines are often subject to tolling, and a 30-day window is not unusually generous. Michigan and its allies, however, maintain that allowing equitable tolling would undermine the clarity and finality of the statute's 30-day requirement. They argue that Congress intended this deadline to be strict to ensure timely removals and prevent forum shopping. By contrast, Enbridge emphasizes that courts have consistently allowed equitable exceptions in similar contexts, ensuring fairness and preventing unjust outcomes. This case has significant implications for federal jurisdiction and procedural law. The outcome could set a precedent for how courts handle

Verticals

legalpolitics

Originally published on SCOTUSblog on 2/19/2026