Appeals court sides with Enbridge over Dana Nessel in Line 5 tunnel dispute

Enbridge

A three-judge Michigan Court of Appeals panel has concluded that the 2018 Line 5 tunnel law does not violate the Michigan constitution.

The legal battle between Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Canadian energy giant Enbridge over the Line 5 tunnel agreement may be headed to the Michigan Supreme Court, after Enbridge won the latest round in a dispute over the 2018 law that made way for the tunnel.

In an opinion issued Thursday, a three-judge Michigan Court of Appeals panel agreed with a lower court that the 2018 tunnel law does not violate the Michigan constitution. 

Nessel, who campaigned for office on a vow to shut down the controversial dual-span petroleum pipeline across the Straits of Mackinac, argues the law is unconstitutional because the purpose stated in its title does not align with its body text. She had asked the court to agree, and invalidate any actions taken under the law — a move that would essentially cancel plans for the $500 million tunnel project.

In a seven-page opinion released Thursday and written by Judge Thomas Cameron, the panel unanimously rejected that argument. 

“We conclude that the title of 2018 PA 359 does not address objects so diverse that they have no necessary connection,” Cameron wrote.

The Republican-backed tunnel agreement, signed in the final days of former Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration, aims to smooth Enbridge’s path to replacing the existing Line 5 pipeline, which sits exposed at the lakebottom in the Straits of Mackinac, with a new segment buried in a concrete tunnel deep beneath the straits. 

The tunnel plan was crafted in response to widespread concern that the aging existing pipeline is vulnerable to a catastrophic oil spill. Enbridge contends that burying the pipeline in a tunnel will virtually eliminate the chances of a spill.

But many, including Nessel and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, have continued to express concerns about the existing pipeline as well as the tunnel plan. 

The lawsuit arose after Nessel issued a March 2019 legal opinion declaring the tunnel law unconstitutional, claiming it violated the so-called “title-object clause” of the Michigan constitution. The clause states that “no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” 

Nessel argues the law’s title does not sufficiently preview the law’s contents. While the title authorizes the Mackinac Bridge Authority to acquire a utility tunnel, the law’s body text goes on to authorize the creation of a new Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority to authorize a tunnel agreement. 

Following Nessel’s opinion, Enbridge sued and won an October 2019 Court of Claims declaration that the tunnel law does not violate the constitution. Nessel appealed, leading to Thursday’s Court of Appeals decision. 

In arguments last week before the Court of Appeals panel, Assistant Attorney General Robert Reichel argued the discrepancy between the law’s title and body falls short of the constitutional standard designed to make sure lawmakers and the public know what’s in a bill before it goes to vote. Enbridge lawyer John Bursch, meanwhile, argued high-profile media coverage leading to the law’s 2018 passage made it hard to believe lawmakers weren’t aware of the law’s contents. 

The court saw things Enbridge’s way. 

In Thursday’s opinion, Cameron wrote that the title-object clause is meant “to prove notice, not restriction.” The act’s title met that bar by signaling that the act would authorize the bridge authority to acquire a bridge and utility tunnel, he wrote. It did not need to further specify details of how that utility tunnel would come to exist.

“Neither the legislators nor the public were deprived of fair notice,” Cameron wrote. 

He added that the transfer of responsibility from the bridge authority to the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority “does not render the subject of the body so diverse from the subject of the title that it does not provide fair notice of its provision.” 

Rather, he wrote, the act’s stated purpose of operating a utility tunnel requires some sort of agreement concerning the construction and operation of the tunnel.

In an email to Bridge Thursday, a spokesperson for Nessel said the attorney general intends to ask the Michigan Supreme Court to review the ruling.

“While we are disappointed by the Court of Appeals decision, we stand by our position that Act 359 is unconstitutional,” spokesperson Courtney Covington wrote. 

Enbridge spokesman Ryan Duffy said the decision confirms that “Enbridge’s agreements with the State of Michigan are valid and enforceable.” 

“We look forward to working with the State to make a safe pipeline even safer,” Duffy wrote.

While Nessel and Enbridge plot next steps in the case, both are awaiting an Ingham County Circuit Court judge’s decision in a separate lawsuit over Line 5. Judge James Jamo heard competing arguments May 22 in a suit Nessel filed seeking to void the 1953 easement that enabled the existing dual-span lakebottom segment of Line 5. 

Jamo has offered no timeline for when he’ll rule on the matter. 

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Thomas smith
Fri, 06/12/2020 - 4:52am

Build the tunnel,

Bek
Thu, 06/18/2020 - 3:54pm

WHY?

Jake K
Fri, 06/12/2020 - 9:43am

Maybe Nessel and the AG's office can save face by continuing their ridiculous prosecution of poor Karl Manke and twisting the facts of the Boyce Hydro situation?

Barry Visel
Fri, 06/12/2020 - 10:37am

I still think the State should leverage Enbridge to build a tunnel big enough to accommodate traffic, as a backup to the bridge. Like the Chunnel between England and France. Build the tunnel now and finish the road if needed later.

Vince Caruso
Sat, 06/13/2020 - 9:42am

Its only a drinking water source to 10's of Millions, and an irreplaceable natural resource we are now temporally entrusted with, sacred to the First Nation and Native Americans, a Natural Wonder of the World, and the largest expanse of clean freshwater on this Good Earth!
What's the fuss?
The indigenous Ojibwe call it gichi-gami (from Ojibwe gichi "big, large, great"; gami "water, lake, sea"

If they Break It They Buy It.
Oh, Wait!!!

Vince Caruso
Fri, 06/19/2020 - 7:18pm

June 19, 2020:
EPA fines Enbridge $6.7M over pipeline safety issues across Minnesota and Wisconsin!!
$6.7M is chump change to Enbridge but not to the vast majority of us!

STOP THE FOSSIL FUEL PIPE SHORT CUT ACROSS MICHIGAN.

water2Wine
Sun, 06/14/2020 - 12:32pm

Like I said before, those judges had their minds made up before they sat down that day. It would be good if it was possible to look into their banks accounts and see if there was a huge deposit given to each of them at some point. That is general practice for Enbridge and most people are well aware of it.