Docket 24-783
Nessel
DecidedApr 22, 2026
9-0decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court rules pipeline company's 887-day-late removal to federal court was untimely and cannot be excused
Impact4/10
What it does
The Court held that the 30-day deadline to remove a civil case from state court to federal court cannot be extended by courts on equitable (fairness-based) grounds. Even though the deadline is not jurisdictional — meaning it can be waived or forfeited — Congress's detailed scheme of specific, limited exceptions shows it did not intend courts to create additional open-ended exceptions. A party that misses the 30-day window must return to state court, regardless of the circumstances.
Who benefits
Plaintiffs who file lawsuits in state court and whose cases are not removed to federal court within 30 days — they can be confident the case will stay in their chosen forum after that deadline passes.
Who is affected
Defendants in state-court civil lawsuits who miss the 30-day window to remove their case to federal court — they lose the ability to seek a federal forum, even if they believe circumstances justified the delay.
Practical impact
Defendants in state-court civil cases who want to move their case to federal court must do so within 30 days of receiving the complaint or summons — no exceptions beyond those Congress has specifically written into law. Enbridge's case must return to Michigan state court, where the Attorney General's lawsuit over the Line 5 pipeline will proceed. Courts of Appeals that had previously allowed equitable tolling of the removal deadline in at least some circumstances — including the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits — are now foreclosed from doing so.
Majority — Sotomayor
Joined by: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
The Court reasoned that while the 30-day removal deadline is not jurisdictional, that alone does not make it flexible or subject to equitable tolling (a legal doctrine that allows courts to pause or extend a deadline based on fairness). The majority held that the text of the statute — which says a notice of removal "shall be filed within 30 days" — uses strict, mandatory language consistent with a firm deadline. More importantly, the Court found that Congress had already built specific, limited exceptions into the removal statute and related laws — such as extra time when removability is discovered late, a "bad faith" exception for diversity cases, and explicit extensions for suits against foreign governments, certain intellectual-property cases, and mass-accident cases — and that this detailed framework showed Congress did not intend courts to add a broader, catch-all equitable exception on top. The Court also noted that Congress expressly gave federal courts the power to allow late removal in criminal cases "for good cause shown," but did not include similar language for civil cases, signaling a deliberate choice. Finally, the Court emphasized that the entire removal statute reflects Congress's strong interest in resolving the question of which court will hear a case quickly and conclusively, and that allowing open-ended equitable tolling would create uncertainty and waste resources by leaving the forum question unresolved indefinitely.
Constitutional question
Does the 30-day deadline for removing a civil lawsuit from state court to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) allow for equitable tolling — that is, can a court excuse a party's failure to meet that deadline based on fairness considerations?
Precedent changed
The ruling resolves a circuit split, effectively overriding the prior holdings of the Fifth Circuit (Gillis v. Louisiana, 294 F.3d 755) and Eleventh Circuit (Loftin v. Rush, 767 F.2d 800) that had allowed equitable tolling of §1446(b)(1) in at least some circumstances.