Enbridge Line 5 pipeline dispute with Michigan goes to U.S. Supreme Court
Article content
The highest U.S. court agreed to hear a case concerning whether Michigan's efforts to shut down the so-called Line 5 oil pipeline belong in federal or state court. Enbridge wants the case heard by the federal court, arguing that the dispute deals with the foreign relations between Canada and the U.S. Canada has invoked a 1977 treaty to try and prevent Michigan from shutting the line, which supplies oil to refineries in Ontario and Quebec.
Article content
Article content
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer ordered Line 5 shut in 2021, arguing it is a threat to the Great Lakes because it presents an environmental threat. Enbridge refused to comply, arguing the governor exceeded her authority and federal jurisdiction applies. Canada has invoked a nearly half-decade treaty governing cross border pipelines in order to keep the pipeline operating.
Article content
'We are encouraged the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the' case, Enbridge said in an emailed statement, citing conflicts between decisions from lower courts. 'The Supreme Court review will resolve this conflict in the courts of appeals.'
Article content
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's office didn't immediately respond to request for comment.
Article content
The 540,000 barrel a day pipeline runs from Superior, Wisconsin, across Michigan and into Canada at Sarnia, Ontario. The line feeds light oil to refineries in central Canada as well as natural gas liquids that are converted to propane for Michigan homes.
Article content
Rather than shutting the line, which rests on the lake bottom, Enbridge seeks to build a tunnel under the Great Lakes to make Line 5 more secure.
Article content
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
8 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Stand up for health-care access
Opinion This is the moment. If you value our health-care system, it's more important than ever to fight for our reproductive rights. On July 4, just over three years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, U.S. President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' was signed into law. For the roughly 71 million Americans who use Medicaid, this means no access to Planned Parenthood's mental health care, cancer screenings, contraception, annual checkups, and other life-saving, primary care services. By the time a judge had blocked the particular provision targeting Planned Parenthood on July 28, 11 clinics had already announced they will close. It's assumed that the Trump administration will appeal the injunction. Let's call this attempt to 'defund Planned Parenthood' for what it plainly is — a direct attack on reproductive and sexual health, an erosion of bodily autonomy, and the dismantling of essential health care systems. Specifically, systems that serve the most marginalized — women, racialized people, queer and trans people, disabled people, low-income people, and those who live at the intersections of those identities. And, quite frankly, as a racialized woman who is also the executive director of Women's Health Clinic, reading this news feels a little too close to home. WHC is a community health clinic that provides many of these same services at our three locations in Winnipeg. It feels like a wake-up call: what starts as an attack on abortion often ends up coming for more. It's tempting to feel like our access to reproductive health care and other essential services could never be endangered in Canada. Abortion is a legal, regulated health-care procedure in Canada, classified as medically necessary. The Manitoba government has provided funding for us to perform 700 more abortion procedures and introduced Pharmacare coverage for prescription birth control and emergency contraception just last year. Rights rollbacks could never happen here, right? It's naïve to think that the U.S. — and the things that happen in the U.S. — don't have a significant impact on the political and social climate in Canada. But the endangerment of our health-care system and gender equity is not hypothetical, it's here. In late July, the federal government indicated they will not be signing any new Pharmacare deals under Mark Carney's administration. This means Canadians who do not reside in the four provinces who have already secured these deals won't have the same life-changing access to free contraception. The tabled budget also indicates an intention to reduce funding to the Women and Gender Equality department by 80 per cent over the next three years. Access to abortion in Canada remains a growing concern: despite is legality, the ability to access abortion care has always been uneven across the country and remains so. Timely access is especially difficult for people living in rural and remote areas who often need to travel hundreds of kilometres to get an abortion. In June, Shared Health published their preliminary findings on a phenomenon that many Indigenous and Black folks already knew to be true — we face longer wait times in the ER. There are dire race-based inequities when it comes to accessing care. Broken trust must be rebuilt, systemic racism must be dismantled, and more culturally relevant services are needed without delay. Rising privatization and the creeping prevalence of for-profit clinics are creating a two-tier medical system across the country. When the number of patients seen in private clinics increases, the data are clear: costs climb, wait times rise, and patient outcomes worsen. At the most basic level, an estimated 5.4 million Canadians do not have a primary care physician. That lack of access to care is driving people online for their medical advice. A 2025 study by the Canadian Medical Association shows that 37 per cent of Canadians said their poor access to health care led to following medical advice they found online. We cannot take the access that some Canadians have — and all Canadians should have — for granted. I'm here to tell you, this is the moment. It's time to act, time to speak up — even if things feel 'OK,' while you're telling yourself 'it could be worse.' Don't wait until they take more from us. Support your local abortion provider. Volunteer, donate and attend events, ceremonies, and rallies. Stay informed and share information from trusted sources. Learn how to spot and refute misinformation when you hear it. Talk to your elected officials. Let them know where you stand: remind them that abortion care is basic health care. Let them know we won't allow the rights of First Nations and Indigenous People to be trampled on. Tell them loudly that upholding LGBTTQ+ rights is non-negotiable. Demand a stop to the insidious privatization of our health-care system. Public investment in health care is public investment in healthy people, healthy communities, and a healthy country. Now, more than ever, we must fight to ensure that our future is one where people on these lands are not only free to make decisions about our own bodies, but that we have the resources to act on them. Kemlin Nembhard is the executive director of women's health clinic.
Globe and Mail
13 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Quebec says Bill 21 opponents are trying to overturn established law
The Quebec government says legal opponents challenging its secularism law at the Supreme Court of Canada are merely rehashing old, failed arguments in an effort to overturn established legal precedent. On Tuesday, Quebec filed 100 pages of legal arguments to the Supreme Court ahead of a hearing in which it will defend Bill 21 in court for a third time. The province won two previous decisions in the lower courts in Quebec, which led to the current appeal at the Supreme Court. Quebec's Bill 21, enacted in 2019, bans public sector workers, including teachers, from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs on the job. The province's goal is to promote secularism in Quebec, but critics argue it is an attack on minority rights. Record number of groups to speak at Supreme Court case against Quebec secularism law Quebec has won two court battles for overriding Charter rights to implement its secularism law. Now the fight hits the Supreme Court The Bill 21 case represents a landmark hearing at the Supreme Court, where the country's top court will consider governments' ability to override the rights and freedoms of Canadians in detail for the first time in almost four decades. The provincial government used Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to shield the secularism law from constitutional challenges on the basis of freedom of religion and other rights. The province's Tuesday filing says opponents are trying to circumvent its proper use of Section 33. In French, the filing says such arguments are asking the Supreme Court 'to amend established law.' Quebec further said its opponents are using legal arguments that have previously failed and that the challengers have not exposed errors in last year's Quebec Court of Appeal decision on Bill 21, which broadly upheld the provincial government's actions. The appeal court, Quebec said in its filing, 'conducted a detailed and meticulous analysis of all the arguments raised by the appellants and rightly dismissed them.' The key precedent is a 1988 case called Ford, where the Supreme Court considered Section 33 on a narrow legal basis but didn't delve in deeper questions about the notwithstanding clause. The Supreme Court at the time said the 'essential requirement' is for a government that uses Section 33 to name the Charter sections it aims to override. The basis of Quebec's Bill 21 argument is that the Ford decision is a precedent that should not be reconsidered. In Bill 21, Quebec stated it was using Section 33 to override the 10 sections of the Charter to which the notwithstanding clause can apply. But in the decades since Ford, and especially in recent years as more provincial governments have used Section 33 to shield laws, legal academics and others have argued there may be more for the top court to say about the notwithstanding clause. That includes whether it can be invoked pre-emptively, as Quebec did with Bill 21, or whether a court can declare rights have been violated even if a law is allowed to continue to operate because of Section 33. This week, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal said there is room for such judicial declarations. Last year, the Quebec appeal court came to the opposite conclusion. Six groups are appealing last year's Quebec Court of Appeal decision. They filed their legal arguments in mid-April. The appellants want the Supreme Court to overturn Bill 21. Among the arguments is a call to reconsider the 1988 Ford precedent. Further arguments include looking at other parts of the Charter, the Constitution, Canada's history and the limits of provincial powers to question the validity of Quebec's use of Section 33 in Bill 21. In Quebec's arguments filed Tuesday, the province said the Bill 21 case 'does not raise any new issues distinct from those considered in Ford.' Quebec then suggested that two of the appellants are effectively trying to rewrite Section 33 of the Charter 'to add conditions that are not found there.' A Bill 21 hearing has not been scheduled, but it could happen this winter. Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Wagner has said it could be heard over three days. Most Supreme Court hearings take one day; rare cases occupy two days. The landmark Bill 21 case has attracted a record number of intervenors, as 38 outside groups will present written legal arguments to the court by mid-September. The federal government is also set to file its legal arguments at the same time, alongside six provincial attorneys-general, including Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Ottawa has previously expressed concern about provincial governments pre-emptively invoking Section 33.
CBC
13 hours ago
- CBC
First Nations react to Supreme Court ruling granting Cowichan Tribes land rights
There's more reaction to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling involving Indigenous rights and title. On Monday, the provincial government said it would appeal the decision, which gives Cowichan Tribes fishing and title rights for a portion of land along the Fraser River. Alanna Kelly has more on this story.
