Summary: U.S. Supreme Court rules unanimously for Michigan AG Dana Nessel Enbridge missed 30-day deadline to remove Line 5 case to federal court Justice Sotomayor emphasizes early resolution of removal questions A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in her argument that Enbridge Energy waited too long to ask to move a lawsuit about twin pipelines running beneath the Straits of Mackinac to federal court from state court. The decision, announced on April 22 and less than two months after the court heard oral arguments in Washington, may revive a 7-year-old case Nessel brought in Ingham County to effectively block Enbridge from using Line 5, a 645-mile-long oil and natural gas pipeline system that runs from Wisconsin through Michigan and into Canada. It doesn't immediately settle any of the specific legal issues regarding the use of the pipelines, however. In that case, Nessel, who campaigned in 2018 in favor of shutting down the line at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, argued that Enbridge's operation of Line 5 violated state law and declared the 1953 easement granted to the state void, citing the risk of an oil spill and the consequences it could have. Enbridge has argued for decades that the line is safe and protected by an international treaty and has moved to build a new single pipeline that would be encased in a 21-foot-diameter tunnel at the bottom of the Straits. Before any action occurred in Nessel's 2019 case, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, in late 2020, issued an order to revoke the 1953 easement granted for the oil and natural gas pipeline as well and filed a lawsuit herself in state court. Enbridge then successfully had Whitmer's case moved to U.S. District Court under federal statute, noting the treaty with Canada involving Line 5 and other issues it said were better suited to be heard in a federal court. Whitmer dropped that case in late 2021, though Enbridge countersued Whitmer in an attempt to block her revocation of the 1953 easement, winning a summary judgment in that effort in a federal court in Michigan in late 2025. (Whitmer has asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to reconsider that decision.) But it was only after Enbridge successfully got that earlier case by Whitmer moved to federal court that the company tried to move Nessel's case to federal court, citing the same reasons. The only problem is that it tried to do so more than two years after it was filed, missing a 30-day deadline. Enbridge argued that a legal concept known as "equitable tolling" applied, allowing for such a delay, effectively equating it to a statute of limitations which had been held in abeyance while the other transfer was decided and noting the international issues involved. "It’s not suffering for a state to have to litigate in federal court," John Bursch, a Grand Rapids lawyer and former Michigan solicitor general who represented Enbridge, said before the Supreme Court during arguments in February. He added that, as far as Enbridge was concerned, Congress didn't intend to "handcuff federal courts" when it came to deciding the best forum for such issues to be considered. But state officials had reason to argue the issue belonged in state court as well. A Michigan judge, for one, might be "better attuned to the state’s interests in environmental protection, recreation and the state’s economy," the American Bar Association said in a preview of the case. Nessel's office argued before the court in February that there was no valid reason for Enbridge to be allowed to blow past the 30-day delay, especially considering the federal statute allowing for removal to federal court didn't specifically grant one. To provide one in this case could open the door to delays for almost any reason, the state said. Arguing before the court in February, Ann Sherman, Nessel's solicitor general, said Congress never intended to give parties so much leeway in transferring cases. "This is not an area where Congress said federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction," she said. "We trust the state court to do it." A unanimous Supreme Court agreed, though it stopped short of deciding whether there were no reasons for delay under the removal statute other than those specifically enacted by Congress. Writing for the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "Enbridge cannot identify any sensible reason why Congress would have adopted so many express, specific equitable exceptions to (removing a civil case from state court to federal court) if equitable tolling was already available for belated removals across the board." "Allowing equitable tolling of (the statute's) deadline would undermine Congress’s manifest interest in resolving threshold removal questions early and conclusively," Sotomayor wrote. "Under the rule the court adopts today, plaintiffs that sue in state court usually can be confident that, after (the) deadline has elapsed, the forum question has been put to rest and the case will proceed in the chosen court. Under the rule Enbridge favors, to the contrary, the possibility of a late removal would hang over a case, generating uncertainty and risking significant waste of resources in one forum before a possible belated removal to another." Nessel didn't immediately react to the decision but it was cheered by officials with the Oil & Water Don't Mix Campaign, a coalition of several environmental groups working to close down Line 5 through the Straits. “This is a clear and pivotal win generated by the movement to shut down Line 5," said Sean McBrearty, the campaign's coordinator. “Now, this case will head back to state court, where it belongs. Thanks to Michigan’s attorney general, we are closer than ever to taking down a foreign fossil fuel giant that is putting 84 percent of North America’s available, fresh surface water at risk each day that Line 5 continues operating." Ryan Duffy, a spokesman for Enbridge, said, the decision aside, Line 5 remains regulated by the federal government, which conducts annual inspections and has identified "no safety issues that would warrant its shutdown." As to the Supreme Court's decision, he said a federal court "already concluded that the governor's efforts to shut down Line 5 were preempted" and that Nessel's state court case "has been stayed by stipulation of the parties pending the outcome of the governor’s appeal" of last year's federal court ruling. "Enbridge is committed to the safe operation of Line 5 and to working constructively with regulators and stakeholders," he added. Some other groups were displeased as well, with the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), an association of small businesses, saying it puts in place a rigid time limit for removal to a federal court that wasn't there before. “Congress never intended for plaintiffs to use procedural gamesmanship and lawsuit manipulation to avoid federal jurisdiction,” said Beth Milito, vice president and executive director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center. “At first glance, this case may seem like inconsequential bureaucracy to the average American, but the court’s decision will have a very real impact on small business owners whose cases are appropriate for federal court.” This story was updated with additional information. Contact Todd Spangler: [email protected]. Follow him on X @tsspangler.

Summary: Commonwealth Court rules 4-3 against Medicaid abortion ban Judge Matthew S. Wolf authors majority opinion Plaintiffs include Planned Parenthood Keystone and women’s health clinics Pennsylvania’s Constitution grants the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy, a state court ruled April 20 in a long-running challenge to the commonwealth’s ban on Medicaid subsidies for abortion. In its 4-3 ruling in favor of a group of Pennsylvania women’s health clinics, the Commonwealth Court struck down the coverage exclusion for abortion contained in the state’s 1982 Abortion Control Act as unconstitutional sex-based discrimination. Although that finding was enough for the court to dispose of the case, the majority took an additional step of declaring that the right to abortion is fundamental. The state’s justification for any infringement on that right is subject to the highest degree of legal scrutiny, the court held. That means the state can restrict the right only when it can demonstrate compelling interest in doing so, the majority said. They sided with a plurality of state Supreme Court justices in a 2025 decision that kicked the case back to the lower Commonwealth Court. “We agree with providers that recognizing this fundamental right, as the plurality did, is necessary to restrict state government to its proper sphere, thus protecting our liberty,” Judge Matthew S. Wolf said in his 40-page majority opinion. “This will mean that the state will face judicial scrutiny of its attempts to coerce reproductive choice. Those choices are the people’s, not the government’s.” In the opinion, the majority also said state Attorney General Dave Sunday’s office had failed to show either a compelling state interest or that the exclusion was the least restrictive way to accomplish its interest. David S. Cohen, a Drexel University professor of constitutional law who assisted in litigation, said the finding of a fundamental right to abortion in the commonwealth is especially significant in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Louisiana decision. That 2022 decision overturned the nearly 50-year-old precedent in Roe v. Wade that established a right to abortion under the federal constitution. The underlying lawsuit was filed in 2019 by the Allegheny Reproductive Health Center, Allentown Women’s Center, Delaware County Women’s Center, Planned Parenthood Keystone and the organization’s southeastern and western Pennsylvania chapters. Since then, the lawsuit has been through Commonwealth Court and the state Supreme Court twice. In January 2024, the high court reversed the lower court’s 2021 decision dismissing the case. In that 3-2 decision, the Supreme Court overturned a 42-year-old decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Abortion Control Act’s ban on Medicaid-funded abortions except in cases of rape or incest. The Commonwealth Court cited that decision as the basis for dismissing the lawsuit. Justice Christine Donohue, author of the state’s highest court’s lead opinion, and Justice David Wecht agreed that “the right to reproductive autonomy, like other privacy rights, is fundamental.” Justice Kevin Dougherty, who concurred in the overall result of the decision, said he agreed with dissenting Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justice Sallie Mundy that the case was not about the right to abortion and it was not the right time to decide whether there is a fundamental right. He added the question was likely to return to the Supreme Court. Susan Frietsche, executive director of the Women’s Law Project in Pittsburgh, said the Medicaid coverage exclusion was the single largest barrier to abortion access in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs noted the ban disproportionately affects low-income and minority women. “We moved a giant step in the direction of removing it,” Frietsche said, adding that it’s unclear whether Sunday, a Republican elected in 2024, would appeal the decision “But what is now in Pennsylvania law that I don’t believe an appeal would disturb, is the constitutional principle that equality of rights under the law guaranteed by our state Equal Rights Amendment includes reproductive rights,” Frietsche added. “And that is a big, significant and very meaningful win for the women of Pennsylvania.” Sunday’s spokesman said the attorney general’s office is reviewing the opinions. Cohen noted the court permitted Sunday to intervene in the case as a new attorney general. “It’s one thing, to intervene at a state being litigated, and it’s another, to take an appeal and spend taxpayer dollars to defend something to a court that has already, you know, strongly indicated that this law is unconstitutional,” Cohen said. While the defendant in the case is the state Department of Human Services, part of the executive branch, the Pennsylvania attorney general has the authority to defend state law under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act. That law delineates the responsibilities of the attorney general and the governor’s appointed general counsel. Gov. Josh Shapiro, who is seeking reelection this year, announced following the Supreme Court’s ruling that DHS would no longer defend the abortion coverage exclusion. “I’ve long opposed this unconstitutional ban,” Shapiro said in a social media post. “I did not defend it ― because a woman’s ability to access reproductive care should never be determined by her income.” State Treasurer Stacy Garrity, the presumptive Republican nominee for governor, responded strongly to the ruling in a series of X posts. “The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s decision to force our tax dollars to pay for abortions is not only misguided, it is immoral. It is also deeply concerning that Governor Josh Shapiro’s administration withdrew as respondents in this case,” Garrity posted, also noting the Abortion Control Act was passed with bipartisan support and that using Medicaid funding for abortion would violate a federal ban. While Sunday’s filings said he accepts the Supreme Court’s holding that the Medicaid exclusion is sex-based discrimination, he offered three state interests that he argued are compelling and for which blocking coverage was the least intrusive means of achieving. Sunday argued the state has an inherent right to protect the life and health of a fetus subject to abortion, an interest in protecting the health of women and “not violating the conscience of those who oppose abortion.” The Commonwealth Court majority rejected each of the attorney general’s office’s arguments, saying it had not shown they are compelling interests. It noted the providers argued persuasively that many other government-funded initiatives would serve achieve those goals without restricting reproductive autonomy. “Any state interest in promoting carrying a pregnancy to term is furthered at least as well by state investment in maternal and infant healthcare, and in childcare and other resources for new mothers, as it is by the Coverage Exclusion,” Wolf wrote. Peter Hall has been a journalist in Pennsylvania and New Jersey for more than 20 years. This article first appeared on Pennsylvania Capital-Star, part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization. This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: Pa. court strikes down Medicaid abortion ban as unconstitutional Reporting by Peter Hall, Pennsylvania Capital-Star / Erie Times-News USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Summary: U.S. Supreme Court declined parents' appeal on gender identity policy 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of parental rights claim Parents represented by Alliance Defending Freedom legal group The U.S. Supreme Court declined on April 20 to hear a bid by parents to sue a public school district in Massachusetts over actions by teachers and officials to support the gender identity of students by not disclosing name or pronoun changes to parents without the child's consent. The justices turned away an appeal by the parents of a student who had self-identified as "genderqueer" while attending a middle school in the Massachusetts town of Ludlow after a lower court threw out their lawsuit. The plaintiffs claimed officials treated their child as nonbinary and hid this information from them in violation of their fundamental parental rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of due process. The case comes in the wake of a significant decision by the court on March 2 to block similar measures in California that could limit the sharing of information with parents about the gender identity of transgender public school students without ​the child's permission. Disputes over efforts to support and protect the privacy of transgender and gender non-conforming students are playing out across the United States. The court in 2024 turned away similar challenges in Wisconsin and Maryland. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is also confronting escalating efforts by President Donald Trump's administration and Republican-led states to restrict the rights of transgender people. In June 2025, the court upheld a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. In January, the court also appeared ready to uphold state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams, with a ruling still pending on that matter. The Massachusetts parents, Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri, said in court papers that teachers and officials at Baird Middle School in Ludlow pushed "gender ideology" on children without the knowledge of parents. As a result, the plaintiffs said, their 11-year-old child, known as "B.F.," began to question the student's gender identity. After asking teachers and staff to use a new name and pronoun, the student also asked school officials to continue to use the child's original name and female pronouns when communicating with the parents, according to court filings. The child identified as genderqueer, meaning a person who does not follow binary gender male-female norms. The parents sued the town, the Ludlow School Committee and certain officials, saying their actions undermined their 14th Amendment due process rights, which the Supreme Court has long held protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children. The parents said that "so-called gender transition" is harmful and that theirs is a moral objection, not a religious one. They are being represented at the Supreme Court by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative Christian legal group. A federal judge threw out the case in 2022. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal in 2025, concluding that the parents had not sufficiently shown a deprivation of their parental rights, including to direct the medical care of their child. The 1st Circuit said it was "unconvinced that merely alleging Ludlow's use of gender-affirming pronouns or a gender-affirming name suffices to state a claim that the school provided medical treatment to the student." The deference by school officials to the wishes of students about whether to disclose their gender identity to parents allows the children to "express their identity without worrying about parental backlash," the 1st Circuit said, adding that the protocol does not coerce students to conceal information or restrain the actions of parents outside of school. "Parents remain free to strive to mold their child according to the parents' own beliefs," the 1st Circuit said. (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)