Supreme Court Holds No Equitable Tolling For 30-Day Removal Deadline
Client Alert | April 22, 2026
Enbridge Energy, L.P. v. Nessel, No. 24-783 – Decided April 22, 2026
Today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) does not allow equitable tolling of the 30-day deadline to remove a case to federal court.
“Because 1446(b)(1)’s text, structure, and context are inconsistent with equitable tolling, Enbridge’s removal was untimely and remand to the Michigan state court is required.”
Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court
Background:
In June 2019, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a lawsuit in Michigan state court seeking to force Enbridge Energy to shut down Line 5, a pipeline running beneath the Straits of Mackinac that supplies propane to Michigan and parts of Canada. Enbridge did not file a notice of removal within the 30-day deadline set by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
In November 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer filed a separate lawsuit against Enbridge in Michigan state court, also seeking to shut down Line 5. Although the suits involved the same basic facts and parties, the Governor’s lawsuit sparked a response from Canada, which asserted rights under a 1977 treaty prohibiting public authorities from interfering with the cross-border transmission of oil and gas. Enbridge timely removed the Governor’s lawsuit to federal court, and the Governor voluntarily dismissed the action in favor of the Attorney General’s suit.
Thereafter, Enbridge removed the Attorney General’s suit to federal court. Although the 30-day deadline to remove under § 1446(b)(1) had long since passed, the district court ruled that this deadline was subject to equitable tolling and that equitable considerations favored excusing Enbridge’s late removal. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the 30-day deadline for removal is mandatory when the plaintiff objects in a timely fashion.
Issue:
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) is subject to equitable tolling.
Court’s Holding:
No. Section 1446(b)(1)’s 30-day deadline for removal is not subject to equitable tolling.
What It Means:
- Upon being served, defendants should promptly consider whether the initial complaint provides grounds for federal jurisdiction and act quickly to file a notice of removal.
- The Court found “decisive” § 1446(b)’s structure. By explicitly providing statutory exceptions to § 1446(b)(1)’s 30-day clock, Congress “strongly indicate[d]” it did not intend to allow for equitable tolling.
- Although § 1446(b)(1)’s 30-day deadline cannot be tolled, other equitable doctrines, such as waiver, forfeiture, and estoppel, may still apply.
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law
| Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 tdupree@gibsondunn.com |
Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 aho@gibsondunn.com |
Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 jpoon@gibsondunn.com |
Lucas C. Townsend +1 202.887.3731 ltownsend@gibsondunn.com |
Bradley J. Hamburger +1 213.229.7658 bhamburger@gibsondunn.com |
Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 bhubbard@gibsondunn.com |
This alert was prepared by Mckenzie Robinson and Samuel Eckman.
© 2026 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.